Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

Visually impaired users and disambiguation

Another editor has recently commented One consideration that probably doesn't get enough air time is that sight-impaired people will not read these articles, but will have them read to them. [1] This has implications both for running text style and of course for article titles, and I think it's an excellent point.

But Wikipedia:Article titles#Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles (shortcut WP:DIFFCAPS) currently reads in part Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. Many of these differences would not generally appear in spoken English. Red Meat and red meat is particularly difficult, and this is relevant to other current discussions regarding capitalisation.

Should article titles be disambiguated both in written and spoken English? This is a new idea to me, but I think it's a good one. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support We can't always ensure that all content is equally accessible (diagrams such as cladograms are important in biological articles, for example) but I agree that we can and should ensure that so far as possible article titles are not ambiguous in spoken English. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't this require us to append explicit disambiguation to the title of any article whose subject shares its name with another notable entity (regardless of whether one is the primary topic)?
    In many instances, we don't even have unspoken formatting differences on which to rely. For example, the David Cameron article is about the Prime Minister of the UK, but several other notable persons share that name. To achieve the change suggested, wouldn't we need to move the article to David Cameron (politician) or similar? If not, why not? The only material difference that I see is the complete lack of titular disambiguation (as opposed to that which is written but not pronounced).
    Isn't this why we have hatnotes (for the benefit of all users, irrespective of visual acuity)? Both Red meat and Red Meat contain them, so what problem actually exists?
    Has anyone bothered to ask one or more users of screen readers to comment on the current setup and experiences therewith, or have we jumped straight to voting? —David Levy 09:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    It probably doesn't do any harm to jump straight to voting, nobody is likely to close this as a poll I hope (although I've been proved spectacularly wrong on this before). But it certainly wasn't what I had in mind for this section. Thanks for your contributions, and for the invitation to Graham87, that's more the sort of thing I was after. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, I regard this discussion as worthwhile. And yes, I certainly hope that no one would close it as a poll. I'm sure that we all "support" making the site accessible to people with visual impairments, but it's important to understand what problems actually exist before we attempt to solve them. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Well put. I only wish editors would apply that last point to all discussions! Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I've invited Graham87 (a screen reader user and WikiProject Accessibility participant) to comment. —David Levy 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the current setup is fine as is. While it's true that screen readers don't distinguish between capital and lower-case letters, the hatnotes are there to help the readers if they're in the wrong place. Graham87 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, exactly the sort of feedback I was after. But it raises a point which has also been raised elsewhere: Should we avoid such disambiguation in running text? There are no hatnotes to help there. And, if we avoid relying on these features to disambiguate in running text, should we then also avoid them in article titles, for consistency? That first question mainly for Graham (but other comments welcome of course), the second for anyone. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    We certainly should avoid relying solely on differences in capitalization/punctuation/type to distinguish concepts in running text. Unlike article titles, no parenthetical disambiguation (or hatnote) is required to accomplish this. To touch on the subject of birds (in the hope that this doesn't ruffle any feathers), most readers (apart from those familiar with specialist conventions) won't realize that "Common Blackbird" refers to a specific species and "common blackbird" refers to any blackbird species that's common. The solution is to explicitly describe the former (irrespective of whether its name is capitalized) as a specific species and avoid using the phrase "common blackbird" to describe another species. (Instead, we can state that it's "a common species of blackbird" or "a species of blackbird common in [region]", etc.)
    Likewise, we shouldn't state that someone is "a fan of red meat" or "a fan of Red Meat" without elaboration. We should explicitly indicate that he/she enjoys "eating red meat" or "reading the comic strip Red Meat".
    This obviously isn't applicable to article titles, so no additional consistency is called for. We just need to make sure that an article's prose is clear and all appropriate hatnotes are in place. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Again, very well put I think. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: what you're suggesting is that we not only meet the technical limitations of Wikipedia by disambiguating topics that would otherwise have the same title, but also go ahead and qualify unambiguous titles if they are ambiguous in spoken English. This includes the minor differences in Red Meat and red meat as well as homophones like birth and berth. I do not think this is a good idea; screen-reading software has the ability to spell out words when needed, and readers and listeners have the ability to parse ambiguity by context, so they don't share Wikipedia's technical limitation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please don't personalise, particularly when you have the wrong person! Good points apart from that. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please don't personalize, particularly when you have the wrong person! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • identify a clear problem first I assume mediawiki or the foundation has someone responsible for accessibility issues. They likely have a way of reaching out to wikipedians or readers who use other ways of getting our content. We need to work through them and have them identify a specific problem, and then if they aren't able to fix it with software, they should come here and say 'hey, could we change some titles such that...' In the absence of a clearly identified problem we should not start working out solutions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Definitely agree with that last sentence, see above. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to create a new article, but...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirection of titles missing periods

Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#URLs ending in period cause issues when copied to clients such as email (version of 15:25, 21 April 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) and 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Seems a very good reason to create a redirect without the period for every article URL ending in a period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A bot could do this quickly and automatically. I have put in the request. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it would be worth making a note of this somewhere in the guideline. — Scott • talk 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Revised proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

A revised Request for Comment has been made regarding the policy compliance of title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here (original here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NATURALDIS and company names

You may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) on whether having company names as part of article titles constitute advertising. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The question of "advertizing" is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion... WP:COMMONNAME is what should govern the debate. Some of our articles on spacecraft include the company name (Example: Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar)... others don't (example: Orion (spacecraft)). It really depends on whether the sources use the company name when referring to the craft. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not the only consideration, though. Unless Boeing's name is prepended almost always when referring to that vehicle, there's really no reason to have Boeing in that article title when X-20 Dyna-Soar would work. Something even shorter than that might; how many X-20s are there? How many Dyna-Soars? People in favor of one name or another can sometimes be good a digging up sources that favor their version of a name and ignoring sources that don't, on the hopes that no one will bother to do counter-research to contradict them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, concision is a factor, but it does not trump commonname. The relevant standard here is not "almost always". The relevant standard is "most common". If the longer name is used more commonly than shorter name, in reliable sources, then we go with the longer name. Only if it's a wash per Common Name do we apply the WP:Concision razor (an essay written by Yours Truly that reflects policy-based reasoning that applies here) to settle the issue. --B2C 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The 'most commonly usedname' for virtually all aircraft is "Manufacturer+Designation (when appropriate)+Name (when appropriate)". This is one of the reasons M-D-N was determined by WP:AIR to be the preferred naming format reccomended by the project for aircraft article titles (the other being consistency, as before there were aircraft without names using naming formats like Martin XB-51, while those with were at formats like B-57 Canberra). And regardless, the contention that the company name is somehow "advertising" is the WP:BATTLEGROUND of one solitary editor who refuses to stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not citing B2C's in-progress and frequently criticized essay at all (though I need to read it again and see if it's improved in response to the criticisms). We've had the principle to prefer a short name over a long one when both will suffice for years; there's nothing new about the idea at all. WP:COMMONNAME does not exist in a vacuum, and is always balanced against other factors when they arise, verbosity being one of them.

Avoiding the unnecessary addition of manufacturer/publisher names to article titles is not at all just one random editor's tendentious fight; it's normal WP practice. Very, very few articles are at such names, for two reasons: It's rarely helpful, and it looks like (and encourages) use of WP for promotional activities. I doubt I have to observe, especially at this page, that the number of wikiprojects making "we do it this way, and you can just go soak your head if you disagree" pronouncements, as if they were their own sovereign entities, is getting really, really tiresome. While it's quite likely that article names that begin with the manufacturer name followed by more details are sometimes, maybe even often, useful for aircraft (among some other things), it's certainly not always helpful. No wikiproject has a special right to force all other editors to use a naming scheme some people at the wikiproject prefer; this is a matter of clear policy, under WT:AT, WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (WP:NPOV is also frequently implicated in these "do it our way" campaigns, based usually upon some specialist usage that has jack to do with encyclopedia writing; see WP:SSF for a better-accepted essay covering that problem in detail).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

SMC, this isn't a LOCALCONSENSUS issue... it is not a case of one WikiProject making up its own rules contrary to "standard WP practice". In fact, when it comes to vehicle related topic areas, including the manufacturers name seems to be the standard practice. For example, Look through Category:automobiles and Category:Motorcycles... the inclusion of the manufacturer's name is actually routine.
What is making the Lynx article problematic is that it isn't a aircraft... it is a spacecraft... and most of our articles on other spacecraft have not included the manufacturers name. However, that omission is due to the fact that, until recently, there hasn't really been a single manufacturer for spacecraft. Until recently, spacecraft were built by governments, not corporations. That is beginning to change. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the Subject preference RfC at the WP:NCP talk page

Over a month ago an RfC on subject preference was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference.

In one of the subsections of that RfC a new wording to be included in the guideline is proposed: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Approach.

It was suggested to avoid mere local consensus, so this proposal has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion.

Feel free to chime in! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Is local consensus at MOS:COMIC overriding policy?

 – There's a related but not completely overlapping active RfC about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2. Some may want to centralize discussion there.

MOS:COMIC at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Disambiguation states:

the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)" ... In general, when naming an article, use the name itself ... unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Robin (comics)).

This is being interpreted this to mean that all articles under the {{WikiProject Comics}} banner, regardless of scope, should use (comics) by default when disambiguation is needed.

It is also stated that articles for characters that began life in comics must focus on the comics aspect of that character, segregating appearances in other media to separate articles:

  • "If a particular incarnation of a comic book-based character becomes notable in its own right then it should have its own article such as Batman in film or Superman in film"[2]

Is this within the boundaries of what a WikiProject can mandate? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the conflict or override is, or what you mean by mandate. WikiProjects do normally work on title guidelines to make their titles more consistently structured, so unless you see a conflict with a more widely agree titling guideline, it's probably OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It's not a consistency issue—WikiProject Comics is saying that articles listed until multiple Projects (say, {{WikiProject Comics}} and {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}) should use (comics) as disambiguation by default, and is using that as a move rationale for articles disambiguated with (character) or something else. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Normally I'm the first to jump on the collective a[ss|rse] of wikiprojects getting WP:OWNy, but I'm not sure I see a real problem here. Characters and whatnot that start as comics-based are almost invariably most notable still in that context, no matter how popular movies or TV shows about them are. Take the character Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead. It's a different but similar and same-named character in the comics vs. the TV series, so if the characters need articles apart from the comic series and TV series (doubtful) it would not make sense to have the TV character covered in the comics article or vice versa. I.e., separate articles with their own disambiguation makes sense. I don't personally agree with using " (comics)" as a disambiguator, but I've given up on that (it's more objectionable with something like " (baseball)", e.g. Mike Smith (baseball), since Mike Smith is not a baseball and is not a brand of baseballs. The wretchedness of that sort of parenthetical disambiguation (vs., say, " (baseball player)") isn't as overwhelming with " (comics)". Anyway, Is there a specific example where the comics project is doing something objectionable?? A general objection to a wikiproject having a fair amount of influence over the shape of articles they consider in-scope doesn't seem sustainable here. What's the particular bad thing happening, and where? Demonstrate the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's come up a couple of times: the "Wolverine" article was moved to Wolverine (character) per a consensus, and then moved back to Wolverine (comics) per another consensus, where objections that "Fictional characters use "(character)"" and that "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS used by comic articles should be changed to the standardized version used by fictional characters" were trumped with "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)" per MOS:COMIC (I wasn't involved in either of these discussions). There's an ongoing debate over at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics) as well. The issue isn't over (character) per se (all parites have rejected (character) in the Hydra discussion), but it has been acknowledged that (character) is the standard disambiguator for characters from other media (books, film, TV, plays)—everywhere but WP:CMC.
(As for the use of "comics", the word is an uncountable noun that refers to the medium. You can't refer to "a comics", but you can refer to the "comics medium" or "an expert in comics"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth looking into, but I decline to get into this any further here, since there's already an RfC ongoing about this but it might be better to let the ongoing RfC conclude first, so discussion isn't fragmented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: 06:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Redundant with RfC?

Resolved
  • There's no reason to fork the discussion. There's an active poll/RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2 about this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    Not a fork—that discussion is about a proposed rewording; this about levels of consensus. Either could fail and have no effect on the other. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Converted by SMcCandlish from edit summary to comment
    Hair-splitting. The entire purpose of the RfC is to determine whether WikiProject Comics's preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics has consensus or should be altered. You reasonably can't then side-swipe that discussion by coming to another forum to challenge the consensus on the wikiproject's naming "guideline" on a tiny bit broader basis. It's like doing a RM on something and engaging in a big debate about that, but also taking it to AfD at the same time in an attempt to have the article merged into something else, as if the RM were moot already. Even if it's not blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping, it's still an unhelpful and potentially confusing fragmenting of discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the other discussion. That should be an OK place to work this out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Comics is agreed on the "preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics"—the proposal was not to change, add, or delete any of the agreed-on disambiguation terms—it's long since ceased to be debated.
The intention of the proposed rewording was to discourage those unaware with policy from thinking that an article that falls under {{WikiProject Comics}} should be disambiguated by default as (comics). Little did I know that members of the Project actually do believe that—an entirely separate question, concerning global policy, which is why I brought it here for clarification. The issues have little hope of being solved if the participants in the discussion are talking at cross purposes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and I think we actually both agree on both of the problems raised by the wikiproject's expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Weighting of sources in determining WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

When we look at usage in reliable sources to determine WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should we be weighting the sources? Is usage in some reliable sources, like books, more influential than usage in other reliable sources, like newspapers?

My view is that we're trying to determine the name most users would expect to be used to refer to the topic at issue. So in that context I don't see why some reliable sources should be weighted more than others... I mean, as long as it's a reliable source, it should count the same. No?

This is relevant in situations like what appears to be happening at Talk:Oh Baby, where a relatively obscure topic happens to have more coverage in (archived, low-circulation) books than the more-likely-to-be-sought (based on page-view counts) article. --B2C 16:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, source quality should be a factor in determining a COMMONNAME ... its just not necessarily the deciding factor. I have no problem giving a bit of extra weight to high end sources... but that extra weight would not necessarily out weigh raw numbers. Essentially, source quality makes for a good tie-breaker, when the source usage is somewhat mixed.
Here is how I think it works: First look through all reliable sources (regardless of where they fall on the quality scale of reliable sources). If one name stand out as being used significantly more often... use that. If there several names that are common... take a second look at the source usage, factoring in the quality of the sources... if one of the choices is clearly favored by sources on the high end of the quality scale... use that. and if even the high end sources are mixed... then we have to say that there is no COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk)-
As for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... I am not sure how source quality would be an issue. It's more a question of whether one topic is significantly more WP:NOTABLE than another. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that books are highly overrated as a source. It is much easier for the average individual to get a book published than it is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, or to get a regular job as a journalist with a reputable newspaper or other media outlet. There are plenty of books in print that are filled with outrageous, incorrect, and completely unsupported claims and usages. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I have not necessarily been talking about books. What constitutes a "quality" source really depends on the subject matter. For example, in an article relating to pop music, a magazine like Rolling Stone would be a high end "quality" source. A magazine like Teen Beat would be at the other end of the spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that we should be in the business of making those judgments. Obviously, there are sources like the supermarket tabloids for which objective evidence of their absence of reliability exists, but short of that kind of unreliability, I wouldn't consider a Rolling Stone to be more authoritative a source for the common name of a band, song, or other music topic than Teen Beat. bd2412 T 01:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's well covered at WP:RS. There are many factors, and being a "book" isn't much. Whether it's a primary source or secondary source is also very important. Much as it says at WP:NOR, primary sources, whether a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal, or a ballot paper, are easily misused. Independent, reliable, reputable secondary sources, and specifically the ones actually, explicitly, supporting the article content, should be weighted most highly. The parallels with Wikipedia-notability are not co-incidental. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS is about evaluating reliability of sources for the purpose of establishing veracity of information in deciding what to include in article context. In that context it makes sense to weight different types of sources differently, and WP:RS does cover that well.

But in title-decision making we just look at usage in sources to help us figure out what is going to be natural and recognizable to our readers (when it's not obvious). In that context, what is the point of distinguishing sources based on quality? How is that going to help us determine which is more natural or recognizable? --B2C 04:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found that not to be true at wikipedia. We do not look at source usage as the "determining" factor in titling articles. Maybe it's written that way in policy and guidelines, but in practice titles are based on a majority of editors preferences, regardless of sourcing. Whether that's good or bad doesn't really matter... it's the way it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, just maybe, "we" should do things a little more consistently with the rest of the project. Maybe article titling should not be a separate "expertise", but something natural to content-writers. Distinguishing sources by quality is a base skill that should be applied to all questions relating to content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, why? Distinguishing sources by quality makes sense for content veracity determination. It makes no sense for determining what term is natural and recognizable. Are the higher quality reliable sources, like scholarly journals, going to use names that are more likely to be natural and recognizable than the names used by lower quality sources, like newspapers? If so, how? If not, why distinguish by source quality in the context of title determination? --B2C 06:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia should be guided by its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why? Why should WP be guided by its sources? I suggest there are two different answers, depending on whether you're talking about content or title determination.

For content determination WP should be guided by its sources to make sure the material is accurate and verifiable. For this higher quality sources are even better.

But for title determination, WP should be guided by the sources because we presume our readers also read the sources, or at least the usage they are familiar with is likely to be reflected in the sources, and so terminology usage in the sources is going to be natural and recognizable to them. Distinguishing among sources qualities simply makes no sense in this context. --B2C 07:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I get to the same basic result through different reasoning. If Wikipedia distinguished which were the most "high level" sources relative to a topic for purposes of determining a name, we would probably have an article on Equus ferus caballus rather than horse. We seem to go in the opposite direction from that. I completely agree that Wikipedia is guided by its sources, but I don't think it is within our power as neutral arbiters to be assigning "high" and "low" level rankings to sources for purposes of determining a common name. bd2412 T 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Poor example... we don't have a significant majority of high end sources that use "Equus Ferus caballus" over "Horse" (in fact the majority of high end sources use "horse"), so that isn't a case where source quality would be a factor (and even if a significant majority of high end sources did use "Equus Ferus caballus" instead of "hourse" the sheer volume of sources that use "horse" would out weigh the issue of source quality). Again, commonness in high quality sources (call it QUALITYCOMMONNAME) simply makes for a good tie breaker when the over-all usage is somewhat mixed.
B2C, You seem to be looking at this issue as an "always" or "never" thing. It isn't. No one is saying that source quality is always the determining factor. We are simply saying that source quality is a factor to be looked at, and can sometimes be a determining factor (in a few rare cases).
Choosing the best title for an article is not an exact science with firm rules... instead it is a very inexact art. We intentionally don't take a formulaic approach to choosing article titles. We intentionally don't say "factor X always out weighs factor Y"... because while X may often (even usually) out weigh Y... there are always going to be situations where Y should out weigh X. I know that some people want this policy to settle every dispute... it never will... because this policy intentionally makes having disputes part of the process. We do list several factors that should be considered when holding a dispute (and it is an incomplete list)... but we intentionally don't say which factor is the most important. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Choosing titles is hardly a science at all, so of course it's inexact. But we have some control over where it falls on the exact-inexact spectrum, and the closer we are to the exact endpoint the fewer conflicts we should have. The problem with saying sometimes we consider source quality and sometimes we don't is that it moves us towards the inexact end of the spectrum, a cost, for no benefit, so far as I can tell. It means people can favor A over B because A is more common in "high quality" sources, while B is more common in reliable sources overall, and then the argument is about whether to go with usage in "higher quality" sources or with usage in RS overall... and can that ever really matter? Either way the result is a title commonly used in RS. Why not just pick the rule easier to follow (don't discern among sources), and go with that?

Yes, the process is inexact, but why make it even more inexact than it has to be? --B2C 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes picking the easiest thing does not result in consensus. "Titles are chosen by consensus" is the only real "rule" here... Everything else in the policy is essentially advice... a list of factors that usually (but not always) help us reach a consensus. We are free to give more weight to one of factors, and less weight to others if that will help us to reach a consensus... We can even totally ignore a factor if it blocks reaching a consensus. And... We are also free to consider factors that are not mentioned in the policy if such factors will help us to reach a consensus. The rule is: discuss all of these factors (and any others that you can think of) and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Creation story/myth/narrative

A few articles about creation myths are titled "xxx creation narrative" (with xxx being the culture or religion from which it originates, like Genesis creation narrative). Others are titled "xxx creation myth" (like Japanese creation myth. Still others are titled "xxx creation story". The problem I see here is that by referring to some articles as narratives and others as myths, we are giving greater credibility to some religions than others, something that we obviously want to avoid per Wikipedia:NPOV. In my opinion, all articles of this type should be titled either "myth", "narrative" or "story", for consistency and equal credibility. What do others think? Rwenonah (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The current scheme seems rather biased, and a more uniform scheme would likely be an improvement. Probably "narrative" is neutral and descriptive enough. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind trying to come up with a consistent word to use for these articles... the fly in the ointment is coming up with one that is seen as being neutral. Editors get very touchy about what term should be used when it comes to articles on their religious beliefs... I strongly suggest that this also be discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree also. Let us suppose that there are two versions of an event. (This might be an issue in a newsroom or in a courtroom.) Let us suppose that I strongly agree with one version, and that I strongly disagree with the other version. I can easily accept a decision to use "narrative" or "story" to apply to each of them simultaneously. If I want to provide evidence for or against one or the other, then that is a separate matter. In an organization which, by its nature, supports one version or the other, words supporting or refuting a version can be expected. However, Wikipedia does not, by its nature, support or refute any version of the accounts in question.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We should follow the sources, the mostly reliable independent secondary sources, should there be conflict on the question amongst the sources. It is not for Wikipedia, or its editors, to ascribe levels of credibility to myths/narratives/stories, nor to rank them, nor to declare them of equivalent credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
These are creation stories, not alternatives to the Big bang theory (which we could maybe also call a narrative, but let's don't go there). It would make no sense to suggest that any of them are more fictional than others, even if different sized groups of English speakers might want to treat them as such. But looking at sources may still be useful. It looks like "story" may be most common for many of them; see [3], [4], [5]; though Japanese and Greek and Hindu and some others are more often referred to as "myth" in English, because they're more foreign to us English speakers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with hard cases, such as near religious adherence to the Big Bang theory, or the overt symbolism devoid of implied authority in the Dreamtime, and new fangled Scientology creationism is worthy, and it shows that editorial judgement is best shied away from. The is room for argument, but arguments should reference independent reliable sources, not assertions of Truth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Dicklyon (talk · contribs), I'm with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) on this one. The whole point of following usage in reliable sources is so we don't make these judgements — they make them for us. If RS are not consistent in how they refer to creation myths/narratives/stories/whatevers, that's not our fault, nor is it a problem that is ours to fix. We just reflect their usage in our titles, whether it's consistent or not. -B2C 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Myth is the neutral and objective scientific term for narratives that are part of systems of religious worship, particularly of those that describe the creation of the world, the technical term is a cosmogonic myth. The technical term should of course be applied to all such narratives. We cannot use the sources blindly in this case because certain religions tend to be described by their followers and others tend to be described by outsiders or even detractors, which creates a bias in the literature if we consider the bulk rather than focus on the specific field of scholarship that focuses on this, namely comparative religion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly; I'd be happy with myth, but large numbers of English speakers that adhere to Genesis-derived religions might object to calling the Genesis story "myth", which is why we are where we are. How shall we fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Narrative or story is probably the best option, to avoid unnecessarily offending a lot of people. Rwenonah (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that narrative or story are accurate, neutral and less likely to offend. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for calling attention to this situation, Rwenonah. It's clear there has been WP:systemic bias at work here. The article List of creation myths lists several dozen creation stories, but pointedly does NOT list the Judeo-Christian/Genesis stories such as Genesis creation narrative (although those stories are categorized under Category:Creation myths and in some cases under Category:Myth of origins, and are referred to in some places as "Abrahamic myths").
    So what to call them? Most such articles are currently called "Foo creation myth". I didn't find any called "Foo creation story", although I may have missed them. "Creation story" and "Creation narrative" redirect to "Creation myth".
    Although "myth" may be the appropriate technical term for such stories, it is generally taken in English to mean "a traditional story that is not true" or "a widely held but false belief".[6] Clearly that's why "myth" is not used for the Genesis version - many readers of this encyclopedia subscribe to that version to a greater or lesser degree - but that is cultural bias. On the other hand, any attempt to change the Genesis version to "Genesis creation myth" would be highly controversial. We should probably change all the "Foo creation myth" articles to "Foo creation narrative," which is neutral and appears to be the more common term in a quick Google search. "Foo creation story" would also be acceptable.
    This would be a major change affecting dozens of articles and should probably be subject to a formal and widely-advertised proposal. I don't think we can "follow the sources" in this case, calling some of them "story" and others "myth", since the sources themselves may be subject to cultural bias. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not Wikipedia's mission to correct cultural biases. That would be advocacy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is Wikipedia's policy to be neutral. Now if there were universal agreement in English-language sources that the Genesis creation myth is known as the Genesis creation narrative, it would be out of place to rename. However, that is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Following usage in reliable sources is being neutral, as neutral as we can be. Second-guessing usage in RS requires making non-neutral judgements. --B2C 19:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure if you're responding to my comment, but this essentially is the point I was trying to make. If reliable sources show mixed usage, then using the same neutral term for similar things per naming convention is just fine. But if one form is demonstrably preferred by reliable sources, then that would take precedence. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This probably also applies to flood myths (Genesis flood narrative]). Rwenonah (talk)

Yes, it does. I agree with you that this needs to be straightened out; the current situation reflects a systemic bias. Apparently en-wiki editors have been reluctant to call the Genesis versions "myths" even though all other such traditional/religious stories are labeled "myths'. I don't think this can be settled in a discussion among a few people on a policy talk page. Where should we take it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Support I think the problem here regards NPOV and its meaning. It seems some of us (including myself) think that maintaining NPOV means that we should take information from RS's and paraphrase/word them to be fully neutral in terminology. Others, such as Born2cycle believe that neutrality is maintained by strictly adhering to the wording of the RS's. Let's talk about this and get some other input from admins and come to a consensus regarding which definition of NPOV and its implementation we are going to use. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't normally turn the neutrality question over to outsiders to decide. We should be internally neutral; if English language sources treat these equivalent myths differently due to western bias, we do not need to import that bias into wikipedia. If we find a reliable source that says one culture's or religion's myth are more realistic than another, we can discuss that, but to just count primary non-neutral sources would not be the way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Should this go to Wikipedia:NPOV? Rwenonah (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality in article content should not be conflated with neutrality in titles. Titles are just titles. Judgements about what references to topics are or are not offensive, neutral, problematic or anything else are inherently subjective, and are made by every RS that references that topic. We rely on those RS in aggregate to make these judgements. If the preponderance of RS are using a particular reference to a topic, then we do too. We follow the lead set by RS; we are not the leader. --B2C 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:NPOV might be the way to go. NPOV is one of the Five Pillars and NPOV applies to titles just as it does to everything else. In this case, it's clear that Genesis religious narratives have been titled differently from all other religious narratives, and that smells like a violation of NPOV. IMO this came about for two reasons: the English-language "reliable sources" we are using may not be religiously neutral (if tallied by Google hits they almost certainly are not); and many en-Wiki editors, possibly a majority, come from a Christian or Jewish tradition and consciously or unconsciously think "my religion is narrative, everybody else's religion is myth." Certainly any attempt to change "Genesis creation narrative" to "Genesis creation myth" would touch off a storm of protest from en-Wiki editors. Part of the problem is that the word "myth", while neutral in scholarly use, is a highly charged/judgmental word in everyday use. I do think the NPOV page, not the titling page, is the place to sort this out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case reliable sources show a mixture of different terms in reference to the same subject. Thus, we need one neutral term in order to be Consistent. In this case, we're probably seeing a manifestation of systemic bias ; if this were a different language/culturally based wiki we probably wouldn't be having this problem. If, however, you read NPOV guidelines, it clearly states that titles (Naming) fall under NPOV just like everything else on wikipedia. So yes, neutrality in titles should be conflated with neutrality in article content. Rwenonah (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I support consistency across all of these; as a Deist (and especially as an Agnostic Pandeist) my conviction is not that any of these accounts are false, but that they are all equally true and ought to be treated accordingly. I suggest dispensing with "myth," "story," and "narrative" altogether and simply going with "account." DeistCosmos (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "account" suggests they're historical, that an eye-witness made a record.
We've been debating this for years. The problem, of course, is that my myths are true while yours are fables. The argument over following the wording of sources that reinforce my myths is an outgrowth of that. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad to have them all titled "myth" but isn't objection to that what engendered this controversy? I do not perceive "account" as being especially more authority-imbuing than "story." DeistCosmos (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see any advantage to "account", and it doesn't seem to have been used anywhere in this context that I can find. "Narrative" and "story" have the advantage of being neutral; they are terms that could apply to both fact and fiction. But again, I don't think we can decide this issue at this page; I think it needs broader participation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


I have an anecdote I think it worth sharing related to this discussion. When I was in high school in the mid-1990s, I took a senior-level college preparatory English and Humanities course. The teacher was also an adjunct professor at the local university in addition to his full-time secondary education duties in the high school. He graded our papers along the same expectations as any of the university's faculty would have, and his lectures were college-style as well. As a case in point, one day he starts off the class with, "your Bible is nothing but a myth. If that shocks you, you will need to get over it because this is how academics in college or at a university will discuss the subject." Personally, I think we should follow the scholarly style with "myth", but since this is a generalist publication, using "narrative" consistently may be the best alternative. (I do not support using "story" though; it just doesn't sound as professional.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:NPOV
  • Support. I don't know whether it should be myth or narrative (story seems too imprecise and colloquial), but I do think we need a consistent rule here. Normally, common use trumps consistency (that's why we have transportation in the United States and transport in the United Kingdom), but in this case we clearly have neutrality and systemic bias to worry about as well. The principle I'd recommend: pick the neutral title (or consistently neutral series of titles) unless reliable sources lean heavily towards the non-neutral title (for example, I'd oppose titling Iraq War "Operation Iraqi Freedom" unless reliable sources were heavily in favor).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We're here to report facts as laid out in reliable sources. Our mission isn't to fix perceived biases. Calidum 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved my comment from the NPOV Talk, since I think that's the wrong place to discuss it. My personal thoughts would be to consider the title's use in reliable sources and follow WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources refer to it as Genesis or Japanese creation narrative or story, then that tile might be appropriate, if they largely reference the Genesis or Japanese creation as a myth, then perhaps that. Personally, I'd probably try to avoid the entire myth / narrative / story from the titles if possible and just go with Genesis creation, Japanese creation, or some parenthetical alternative if it's not conflicting with other article titles. I expect using the term myth to describe currently held religious views is causing (and just asking for) contention and that one of the other terms would help keep the peace and is less judgmental (considering it a viewpoint described in Wikivoice). Morphh (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I see that we put that discussion in the wrong place. We put it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, when it should have gone to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Should we try again? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that people mainly use that board to call attention to discussions elsewhere about NPOV. So I posted an invitation there for people to come here and weigh in. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that this must be decided on a case-by-case basis without reference to the validity of religious beliefs. A myth is a story, which can be told in many ways by many tellers. Cf. OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." A narrative is a specific text relating a story. Cf. OED: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account." If the article is about the story without being tied to a version in one specific text, the word "myth" should be used in the title. If the article is about a particular textual instantiation of a myth, the word "narrative" should be used in the title. In some cases there is only one textual instantiation of the myth, such as Genesis creation narrative. In such cases the subject of the article should determine the title, and it may be desirable to have two different articles, one on the myth and one on the narrative, if they'd be supportable by reliable sources. Of all the XXX creation myth articles we have, only Sumerian creation myth is comparable to Genesis creation narrative in that there's only a single textual source for it. The others are all about either straight-up myths out of oral traditions, so there are no canonical narratives or else, as in Japanese creation myth or Egyptian creation myths there are multiple textual sources either recounting a single myth (Japanese) or multiple myths (Egyptian). The Sumerian creation myth article is, in my opinion, misnamed because it's about a specific text that recounts what's one of many different Sumerian creation myths both extant and presumed lost that are discussed in the literature. The articles on those other Sumerian creation myths, when they exist, are (properly) named more specifically after the actual texts in which they're found. The question of whether our choice between "narrative," "myth," or "story" in the titles of all these articles connotes an endorsement of either their truth or their falsity is a red herring.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody really, really doubt that reliable sources can be found describing any and every theological theory of Creation as a "myth"? And though the degree to which such sources may so describe one proposition or the other may vary, if one goes back far enough one may find sources deemed reliable for their time decreeing heliocentric theory to be false, contradictory to scripture, and blasphemous. And yet who would fault modern scientists for hewing to an almost-religious certainty that heliocentrism is true? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Is this meant to be a reply to my comment?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        • By that definition of narrative, literally any story, be it oral or a canonical text, is one. Therefore any culture's myth is also a narrative or a collection of narratives and could be titled accordingly. Rwenonah (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
          • That's almost right but doesn't go quite far enough. Is it meant to be a reductio ad absurdum? Some cultures' myths are only transmitted orally. Then it would be possible to (a) write an article on the myth or (b) on individual oral traditions of the myth if there are more than one or (c) individual oral narrations of the myth if any of them were fixed enough to have been the subject of discussion in sources (this is a genuine possibility, see for instance Lord's The Singer of Tales for work on fixed oral versions of folklore) or (d) individual unique oral narrative recountings of the myth if they were preserved in audio form and met the GNG. Also note that I skipped some of the possibilities that would arise if a culture has more than one creation myth, but you can certainly generate them for yourself. If a culture's myth or myths have been written down and an individual written version is notable enough for an article then certainly there could be articles on (a) the myth in general and also (b) any of the individual narratives of the myth that meet the GNG. Then presumably we'd have articles titled XXX creation myth, XXX creation narrative 1, ... , XXX creation narrative n (or whatever names the individual narratives went by). Why is this a problem?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
            • I have to say that Alf's reasoning makes the most sense to me on this subject that I have seen so far. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
              • I agree with Alf, and was about to make this point as well. A "narrative" is a specific text, which is only one exemplification of a multi-formed myth. So, we can have Genesis creation narrative for the actual text in that book, but something like Abrahamic creation myth for the general mythology in this family of religions.--Pharos (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf, that reply was at the whole discussion, but the heliocentrism part was really directed to the notion of the Big Bang as eliciting a religious level of belief. But speaking of reliable sources, thousands of google books hits have the exact term, "Genesis creation myth," so it really ought not be at all controversial to deem it a title supported by reliable sources. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. As you can see, I don't deny that there could be an article plausibly called "Genesis creation myth" based on reliable sources. I just deny that our Genesis creation narrative is that article. Are you sure that all those gbook hits are talking about the narrative, or are they talking about the myth?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The narrative in this instance is the myth. Look at Catcher in the Rye. There is a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' Or a first person account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, again a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' But this narrative, like a narrative of the earth being born from a giant cow, is a myth. Even if it were to be discovered to be true, it is still a myth. See the difference? DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. This narrative is a distinct and notable narrative of the myth. It is not the myth itself. There are earlier narratives of (parts of) the myth, J and P, which have their own articles. There are later narratives of the myth based on this narrative. Probably every translation of the Genesis narrative is a new narrative of the myth. Some are undoubtedly notable enough to support articles, e.g. the Septuagint version, Jerome's vulgate, the Vulgata Clementina version, Luther's translation, the KJ translation, Douay-Rheims, other languages. I have no doubt that the narratives in all of these versions could support articles. Even the wikipedia article we're talking about is a distinct narrative of the myth, although not notable (yet?). Arguendo, assume that the life of Jesus is a myth. Then we have at least four narratives of that myth, each with its own article. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, what you have revealed is a category error, which has become the basis for my vote to support moving this title -- a Creation myth is a kind of thing, and everything which is one is a something-"Creation myth" whether it is a narrative or other form. This is a whole concept, like "hot dog" being different from either a "hot" or a "dog" -- if one had a recipe for a certain kind of hot dog, one could not correctly title it a "hot recipe," instead of a "hot dog recipe." For that is what titling the narrative of a certain Creation myth a "Creation ____ narrative" instead of a " Creation myth narrative" does!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You're quite confused. See my comment on the other page. You're right that "hot dog" is a kind of a thing. In fact, "hot dog" is a single word in the English language. That's not the case with "Creation myth." "Creation myth" is not a single word, it's a determiner+noun construction.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Alf, you say that the Vulgate and KJ are different narratives of the same myth. But our article is not about a specific version, so either it is the myth, or we need to remove the English examples and narrow the focus to the Hebrew narrative, in which case "Hebrew narrative of the Genesis creation myth" might be a better title. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I actually said "probably." When we write articles on books in non-English languages we often quote some of the text translated into English. There's nothing different here. Articles on specific translations are probably all doable, but the fact that they're doable isn't an argument against having an article on the narrative free from reference to the language its in. Our article is about the canonical Hebrew text and some of the issues that arise in general in translating it into English. It makes quite specific reference to the Hebrew text. Since the Hebrew text is the original it would be silly to qualify it as you propose. It would be like moving Don Quixote to Don Quixote in Spanish.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with myth, since it is more specific. Wikipedia has taken the position that Creationism is pseudoscience, so the work of finding sources is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia neutrality means presenting views in reliable sources according to their prevalence. It does not mean correcting the bias that exists in reliable sources. Since rs do not normally call the Genesis story a myth, neither should be.
If there is a bias in rs, I would say it is that the term myth is used to denigrate non-Abrahamic creation stories. That happened historically because Western scholars could not see heathen religions as having equal validity.
TFD (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And that is ultimately the issue here. It's not so much which word we use, but the unequal application of words based on our own (or our references') biases. This is no different than calling 'primitive' nations 'tribes', their kings 'chiefs', their languages 'dialects', and their religions 'fetishes' – there's nothing wrong with using those words for actual tribes, chiefs, dialects, and fetishes, the problem is in unequal application. This is to be avoided per WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Google books and Google scholar (both of which have problems if not used carefully, show a far number of this for "creation myths" then "creation narratives". In addition, myth and narrative are not synonymous. In some cases there is a clear narrative - there is a narrative in Genesis and there is also a Genesis creation myth, but for many myths there is no single narrative, story, account, etc. The fact that Abrahamic theologians write about Christian and Jewish myths is often ignored in these debates which get turned into "If you use myth you are anti-religious" arguments. Are we really not going to have articles that use the term "Greek mythology"? :TFD, we have articles on Christian mythology and Jewish mythology - what do you want to call them? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There are various Jewish and Christian Midrashs that have the Creation as their setting (The idea that Satan/Lucifer was a "Fallen Angel" for example). Midrashs are stories that do not appear in the bible... and I don't think anyone would object to classifying them as "Myths". The question is whether that word should be used to describe the scriptural account told in Genesis? In the interest of NPOV, I would avoid it. The fact is, The word myth is seen as a pejorative... it is almost always used in the context of discussing the stories of religions other than one's own. Greek Mythology is called "mythology" because it isn't part of the Judeo-Christian religious belief. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
True, "narrative" and "mythology" are not synonymous. However, "narrative" and "myth", if used in reference to a specific myth, can be. Narrative is defined as "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." Myth is defined as "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The two definitions overlap significantly; every myth is also a narrative. Therefore, by calling a myth a narrative, we are simply using a vaguer definition which does not imply falseness. We need to consistently call all creation myths narratives, or consistently call them all myths, or we are treating them partially and with bias. Rwenonah (talk)
  • Support standardising the titles. "Myth" would be my preference, as it seems to be the term favoured in scholarly usage, but if that is too controversial "narrative" would be an acceptable alternative. Seeking consistency in article titles is not a case of impermissible activism on Wikipedia's part: it is supported by WP:Article Titles. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Specifically, I support "myth", because they are creation myths. There's no reason to use euphemisms. To insinuate that Christian mythology is not mythology is plain silly, and such favoritism does our readers a disservice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
OK... Let's analyze this with our WP:Article titles policy firmly in mind...
First, we need to determine whether the title is a NAME title or a DESCRIPTIVE title. If it is a NAME title, we then have the follow up question of whether WP:COMMONNAME applies. To answer the question we need to determine whether reliable sources use the exact string of words "Genesis Creation Myth" as a name for the story. Simply referring to Genesis as being a myth is not enough. (This is similar to how we deal with article titles about mass killings. While we can describe the event as being a massacre in the body of the text, we don't include the potentially POV word "massacre" in the title unless the event is routinely NAMED "The X Massacre" in sources).
Looking at the sources... there certainly are reliable sources that refer to Genesis as being a myth... but there are few (if any) that use the string "Genesis Creation Myth" as a NAME for that story. Therefor, I must conclude that our article title is a DESCRIPTIVE one. (and the follow up question of WP:COMMONNAME is moot).
Since this is a DECRIPTIVE title, it does not really matter whether Genesis is or is not a myth. The issue becomes whether including the word "myth" in the title is WP:NEUTRAL or not. That is a more complex issue. Certainly using that word will be offensive to fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the story. It will also give pause (if not offend) those who see Genesis in a more allegorical light (believing that it contains spiritual/allegorical truth, if not factually "accuracy"). Others, of course, will have no problem with the use of the word. Being dispassionate, and considering all the differing viewpoints, I have to conclude that the word is NOT a neutral one.
That leads to yet a further question... is there some other word that is neutral? Story? Narrative? Account? I think they are all problematic. Someone will object no matter which word we use to describe Genesis.
So... let's think outside the box... can we come up with a title that will NEUTRALLY describe the topic. One that will not use any of the potentially POV words. I think we can... and (as an initial offering) would suggest something along the lines of Creation according to the Bible. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue isn't with that article, but with calling it "narrative" and virtually everything else "myth" (Genesis certainly is a myth in the academic sense of the word). If myth isn't neutral in reference to Genesis, how can we use it to describe Shinto? Or Ainu traditions? Rwenonah (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
My opinion... describing Shinto or Ainu traditions as "Myths" is equally Non-Neutral... and so we probably shouldn't use "myth" in such contexts either. I would go with Creation according to Shinto tradition, Creation according to Ainu tradition... (or generically: Creation according to X. Such a title would be completely neutral, and completely accurate. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rwennonah. Myth is perfectly neutral. Abrahamic religions are not a special case merely because they are popular in the West. Academic sources refer to these stories as creation myths, and these are the kinds of reliable sources that I would trust. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be in favour of consistency, so what term is the best? Personally, I feel it doesn't matter so long as the terms are consistent. Rwenonah (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Myth isn't neutral at all, because it is interpreted (and frequently explicitly intended) as an anti-religious/agnostic/atheist point, even when applied to all religions. While, yes, Abrahamic religions are not magically special, there is no point in adopting a convention guaranteed to piss people off for no reason. "creation story" or "creation narrative" (and similar constructions - "origin narrative", etc.) are perfectly fine. I don't know if we necessarily want to impose one particular form of the other as a matter of article title policy, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And those opposing 'myth' sometimes deliberately interpret it as being anti-religious, etc., despite the fact that it isn't. 'Story'? Like in fairy stories? I always think of stories as fiction, and that isn't what 'myth' means. The fact of the matter is that there is something described by even theologians as a Genesis myth, eg [7] which does call Genesis a narrative but discusses its mythical aspect. See also[8] and many others if you search. Note that may creation myths are not actually narratives as there is no on written source. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you automatically think of "news stories" and "life stories" as fiction? "Why are you so upset? C'mon, tell me the story." No, of course not, and neither does anyone else—"stories" are fiction when qualified as such ("fairy stories"). The default interpretation of "myth" is as fiction ("People say that XX is YY, but that's a myth"), therefore "myth" is inherently controversial a choice. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Numbered streets using qualifiers

Are numbered streets also one of the exceptional topic areas (like UK Parliamentary constituencies) that use qualifiers even when there's no ambiguity or for the primary topic? See Talk:34th Street (Manhattan). 34th Street redirects to 34th Street (Manhattan), which I tried to fix but was reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Disagree that determining ambiguity should consider only Wikipeia-notable topics. There are many numbered streets in the world, not just in Manhattan. The standards on redirects are quite low, so the existence of a redirect is weak evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I would say that most numbered streets will end up being disambiguated (with the undisambiguated title used for a dab page) ... eventually. However, I don't think there is a need to anticipate this and pre-disambiguate. As long as we only have one article using the title, leave it alone until a second article (one that could also use the title) is written ... then disambiguate both articles, and create a dab page.
Of course the exception to that eventual disambiguation is when one specific numbered street stands out as being a PRIMARYTOPIC. The specific 34th Street in Manhattan may qualify as a PRIMARYTOPIC, since it is featured in the title of the movie(s) Miracle on 34th Street. One could argue that this movie title makes the 34th St. in Manhattan stand out, and makes it significantly more Notable than any other 34th St in the world. The same could not be said for, say, 35th Street. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia right now, the street in Manhattan is the primary topic for 34th Street -- if you enter that text in the Search box, the article you land on is the Manhattan street. As the primary topic, it doesn't need to be qualified. If it needs to be qualified, it's not the primary topic and the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are many things in the world, not just numbered streets. Wikipedia doesn't preemptively qualify every title on the off chance that something that's not on Wikipedia may one day be on Wikipedia. In this case, the existence of a redirect from the base name to the same name with a qualifier is strong evidence, even if there are low standards for redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You (the one seeking to remove disambiguation) should have to establish that no one will misrecognize this 34th street for another 34th street, regardless if whether the other 34th street is a Wikipedia-notable topic likely to get an article. Readers do not live in notability-restricted Wikipedia space. Extra disambiguation hurts no reader. Misrecognition hurts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
However, if there is no article on any other 34th Streets, there is no point in disambiguating the article that we do have. The entire reason for disambiguation is to help readers navigate Wikipedia, and find articles on topics they are looking for. If we only have one article that currently takes a given title, there is no reason to disambiguate it. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If the base-name title is insufficient for the primary topic for the base name, the article needs a better title without artificial qualification. OTOH, we do recognize that the title is not the article lede, and the article lede sets the real parameters. Michael Jordan exists at Michael Jordan and relies on the lede to tell you that the article is about the basketball player, for example. No one had to guarantee that no reader would misrecognize that Michael Jordan for another Michael Jordan. The primary topic is the primary topic, and if this 34th Street is the primary topic for "34th Street" (as it is currently), it would not need qualification in the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's not confuse issues... your initial question asked about situations where there isn't a clear PRIMARYTOPIC. In those situations... does a title need to be pre-disambiguated in the anticipation that other articles will someday be written on other topics with the same name? My opinion is: No... we should wait until one of those other articles is actually written... until there is an actual reason to disambiguate. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That's more of a WT:DAB discussion, not a matter for WT:AT. AT is about what titles should be, not when to disambiguate and how. There's a very long-standing "redlinks help generate articles" argument used at DAB and elsewhere that linking is discussed. That idea may need to be revisited at this late a date, but that's a pretty big site-wide issue. The percentage of articles that obviously need to be written but haven't been yet in 2014 is much, much smaller than it was in 2008, the argument can be made. But it's a way bigger topic than numeric street names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Given name &c

I'm not shure whether this update is an improvement: [9]

<first name> <last name> are the (stable) expressions used at WP:NCP. Not omitting any given names may lead to misinterpretation regarding middle names (usually omitted). I'd rather use Van Beethoven as Beethoven - the latter used to redirect to the film, so Van Beethoven is more robust (has no other redirect history afaik). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Then we should choose someone who is often referred to by their surname. "Van Beethoven" may be more "robust" that "Beethoven", but it is not a good example, since no one says "I'm going to see a performance of Van Beethoven's Ninth on Friday." Mozart, Churchill, Gandhi, Shakespeare, Einstein, Austen: there are plenty to choose from. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
These all have "<last name> (disambiguation)" pages (Austen even is a disambiguation page), difficult to mount them as an exception to WP:CONCISE. FYI, Mahatma Gandhi is actually stripped of given names.
Maybe there are better examples than Van Beethoven, but famous people tend to get a lot of things named after them...
Van Beethoven is unambiguous, and contains "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area", which makes it a WP:CONCISE exception.
Anyhow, all suggestions for better examples are more than welcome, until one turns up I'd not remove the Van Beethoven example though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Think I got one: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (not Mies van der Rohe). I think that example also clarifies why the guideline uses last name (Mies van der Rohe) and not surname (Mies).
No one objecting I'd keep to the terminology used at WP:NCP, and replace Beethoven by Mies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The existence of disambiguation pages (or of page histories) isn't an issue here for the (current) primary topics, although we should avoid any that aren't the primary topic for the single name. I think we should use a more familiar single name than Mies; I don't see the utility of emphasizing the difference between "surname" and "last name". Perhaps we just call it "family name" here. I'd rather avoid "first" and "last" since some naming conventions put the family name before the given names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the exception to the policy principle should be formulated less specific as to which subsidiary guidelines are involved. Currently, "surname first" examples aren't really treated at NCP, they are referred to other guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#People from countries where the surname comes first). I have no experience in the field (although Mao seems like an example), and am cautious not to speak of things I don't know much about. That NCP (and established practice) condone exceptions to WP:CONCISE is clear though. I think this lenghty discussion could have been avoided when that had been clear from the outset.
I'd keep actual examples as far as possible from any disambiguation rationale, in order to avoid confusion that they wouldn't be actual conciseness exceptions, but your reasoning is sound that this shouldn't be a real obstacle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: are Philipp and Emanuel given names (or part of the given name) in this example: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach? If so (even if this is only exceptionally understood thus), it wouldn't be correct to replace "first name" (as it is used in the NCP guideline) by "given name". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, given names. It would still be correct to replace "first name" with "given name", since we don't drop given middle names either for conciseness, only for WP:COMMONNAME reasons. If someone is commonly referred to by their middle name(s), we keep them, even if they aren't needed for unique identification. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Um... JHunter, your last comment confuses me... from my experience we usually do drop middle names, unless a) WP:COMMONNAME says to include them, or b) adding them helps with disambiguation. Was that what you meant to say? Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
imho a) is covered; b) is covered by the usually (and the reference to WP:NCP).
I'm OK with JHunterJ's reasoning, as long as this wording couldn't be taken as an excuse to insert arcane middle names.
I added "or abbreviated" to the wording on the policy page, then it covers the extent of the exception more appropriately, and added another example for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Blueboa, that's what I mean to say and what I said, yes. If the subject's common name includes the middle name(s), we don't drop them for conciseness. If the subject's common name doesn't include the middle name(s), they're not there to drop for conciseness. In short: we don't drop given middle names for conciseness, only for common name reasons. I think we also don't (or shouldn't) use them for disambiguation, since they don't help the reader figure out which person they want (if the middle name isn't part of the common name, the reader wouldn't be expected to know the middle name of the topic sought). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-English titles

Talk:Dang_Huu_Phuc#Requested_move_2 is a move proposal to move:

Above that, there is an RM discussion from 2011 where the no-diacritics version was favored, and so it stands today. But now people are saying this type of move is the norm. What ever happened to WP:USEENGLISH? I have no idea how to read, much less pronounce, the symbols on the right. There is no evidence that reliable English sources use these symbols. The argument that we have Unicode and they don't is a poor excuse. We have the whole Cyrillic alphabet available to us in Unicode, but that does not mean we're going to move all Russian names of people and places to Cyrillic titles. We follow usage in reliable English sources, period. What the heck is going on??? --B2C 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki policy or guidelines are one thing, while today's wiki usage and rfc's are another. Per RfC, no matter how common a name is spelled using the English alphabet, and no matter if the English sources are 99 to 1 in favor of the non-diacritic spelling, we are banned from using that spelling...not only in the title, but in even mentioning it exists as a common spelling anywhere else in the article. I thought you knew this by now? I've learned to live with this censoring as part of the modern wikipedia so you should probably move on yourself and accept that is the way it's done here now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I must have slept through something. When/where did that happen? Outrageous! --B2C 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The last one I recall was in an RfC on Censorship of the English alphabet. Like I said, the banishment is here to stay so it's best to move on, live with it, and edit other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The short story is that some editors began to interpret WP:RELIABLESOURCES (and in particular, the phrase "reliable for the statement being made") to mean that, in the area of diacritics, the only reliable source is one that is proven capable of using diacritics. A non-diacritic-using source is disregarded as unreliable for proving English-language usage or orthography. User:Fyunck(click) is correct that that view has won the day in the trenches, although there still has not been a WP-wide RFC that has settled the issue to my knowledge. For more insight, contact User:In ictu oculi, who has championed the pro-diacritics cause for a few years now. I could also point you to several RMs where this has been at issue. Dohn joe (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Although there may not have been a WP-wide RfC on the specific issue of titles, the RfC Fyunck(click) refers to above seems pretty clear. If the form without diacritics can't be mentioned in the article, then clearly it can't be the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That RFC takes for granted that native diacritics should be used, and only asked if the non-diacritics version of a name should also be used. That's a different question from whether and in what circumstances diacritics should be used in the first instance. Note that the closer of that RFC explicitly punted on the issue of what to do with letters that differ between English and the native language - þ→th, for example. There are informal understandings - that an article on a person who has taken on citizenship or spent a significant amount of time in a country whose language lacks diacritics may drop the diacritics. There was also an RFC that In ictu points to on adopting Vietnamese diacritics usage in particular. I just have not seen a WP-wide RFC that comprehensively addresses diacritics usage. We may not need one (although it would be nice to coordinate real-life usage with WP:DIACRITICS, and my guess is that only an RFC could do that), but I don't think there has been one. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is true... for that particular RfC. But in the tone of that RfC, in article after article, move request after move request, the majority of editors (including administrators) has been quite clear on what they want. Unless a person lives in the US and/or it can be shown that they personally use the English spelling of their names (i.e. their facebook account, twitter, personal website content, signature) then any form of the English alphabetized spelling is censored on wikipedia. It cannot be used, no matter the sourcing, in titles or in prose. So again we should probably move along to edit other interesting topics. One thing that could stand an update is the section at WP:NOTCENSORED as it is untrue and out of date with the current practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think calling this censorship is ridiculous. Rather, there is a general move to use the appropriate diacritics, even if in some cases the majority of english-language sources do not use said diacritics. I think this is different than other debates around what is a "preferred" name, etc, and is more a rather of correctness and accuracy. If a given source does not use diacritics at all, we cannot use that source to determine if diacritics *would* have been used by them if they could.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes - that is exactly how I described the position in a nutshell. But the point is, that's not the only rational position, and it's not the position of WP:DIACRITICS. It also doesn't take into account some of the nuances I mentioned above. And it doesn't change that, right now, as it has been for a long time, diacritics policy on WP is ad hoc, or at least unwritten.

And yes, censorship is a far cry from just not having things come out the way one would prefer - using terms lke that does nothing to advance any discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: The assumption you are making here is that if a source does not use diacritics it is because they can't, not because they choose not to. Anywhere else in Wikipedia, you would have to source that assumption in each and every case. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We have plenty of examples of this - especially if you're talking about vietnamese diacritics, for which printing presses in some cases would choose not to use either because technically impossible or financially unrealistic. The best way to determine such cases is when they use vietnamese diacritics for some names, but not for others - like if they write Đặng Hữu Phúc was born in Vietnam (and not Việt Nam). There are also problems with using search engine results, which actually can strip off diacritics, as well as OCR. I've participated in some of these debates and claims were made that book X used name Y without diacritics, but on close examination of the book, it DID actually use the diacritics, but the summary by google books was misleading. I don't think we should conflate COMMONNAME issues around diacritics with things like Deadmaus vs Joel Zimmerman, since there isn't a difference in technological capability or editorial style around using one or the other.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It is censorship. It is banishment. Many sources don't use diacritics because they choose to follow English language customs. And there are sources that use both diacritics and non-diacritics... they don't count either. It is what the majority of editors want that counts, not sourcing. And you're kidding yourself by saying "some cases" or "the majority of English-language sources." You make it sound like it's close in the sourcing when it's not. Unless it's the "Inquirer" we do not pick out our sources, we use all of them. Now if this happens on only some articles or some spellings you might have a point about censorship. If we are permanently stopped from using the English spelling anywhere in an article, everywhere, it is what it is no matter how candy-coated you'd like to make it. It's not a discussion on changing things. I'm not advocating a change back... I'm simply letting B2C know how and why it works here now so he can move on to better things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you read that RFC, that was specifically about whether there was any use or value to the reader in repeating ascii-titles in the lede, like Đặng Hữu Phúc (Dang Huu Phuc). There was a broad consensus against this, since it was felt the reader didn't need to see the stripped-down version. Again, calling this censorship means you misunderstand what the term censorship means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You are reading that RfC way too narrowly and naively, without the understanding of what went on before or after. And you are 100% wrong about the lead only. The Englsish spelling can't be mentioned anywhere, anytime. It can't be in the title, it can't be in the prose. It is you who aren't comprehending that wikipedia expurgates things based on what editors want. Go ahead and ask the many contributors to that RfC what they intended with it and the 1000s of move requests before and after. English alphabet spellings are banished if it can be shown that a source spells the name differently in their home country, regardless of the number of English language sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how you read that RfC, it's nuts. Worse. It mocks Wikipedia. Look at this. Hồ Ngọc Hà. What the heck? That's the title in the English Wikipedia. The ENGLISH Wikipedia. I kid you not! What a farce. That is not English. That is not recognizable. It is certainly not natural. When I Google that gobbledygook I get a bunch of Vietnamese sites. But when I search for "Ho Ngoc Ha", I get English websites. It makes no sense to use non-English terms in an English encyclopedia. I've seen plenty of bullshit on WP before, but this has to take the cake. I can't believe people who care about the integrity and reputation of this project are allowing this absurdity to continue. --B2C 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the diacritics as a more accurate portrayal of the names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
B2C, I understand that you feel very strongly about the situation, but please take it down a notch (or twelve). This is actually an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. There has already been a great deal of invective and histrionics over this issue in its many incarnations over the years - more of its like will not serve to do anything but harden hearts and inhibit open dialogue. If you want to have a discussion, fine - but this is not the tone to start with. Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
And that's cool @Casliber... some will agree with you and some will not. But it doesn't matter anymore if you or I like them or not. It's been resolved. We MUST use them at wikipedia regardless of sourcing, and any English alphabetic form is not allowed to be shown anywhere unless we have it from the person in question's own lips. That is what we follow here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
But that's part of my point, User:Fyunck(click) - that broader point has never been properly discussed and resolved. I know you feel demoralized and picked on, but WP marches on, and feelings and opinions can change - no issue is ever set in stone around here. Dohn joe (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't feel that way at all. I mean sure, a couple editors will never be forgiven by me, but mostly it's not personal. The wiki editors have spoken on what they want around here. I feel bad for what this means at wikipedia, and for our many readers, but it is what it is. This wikipedia has changed a lot since it's inception...some good and some bad. I may feel this particular issue is really bad for what it does to wikipedia, but there were more editors wanting these restrictions than not so there's nothing I can do but move on and edit within those parameters unless I want to get blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dohn joe, but how do you have a constructive discussion with someone who takes the ridiculous position that he "likes" (I kid you not) Hồ Ngọc Hà because it is "a more accurate portrayal of the names"? Yeah, it's more accurate in Vietnamese, BUT NOT IN ENGLISH!

Since a "more accurate portrayal of the names" now means WP:USEENGLISH DONTUSEENGLISH, why do it half-assed by limiting ourselves to diacritics? Shall we move Mikhail Gorbachev to Михаи́л Серге́евич Горбачёв because that's "a more accurate portrayal of the names"? Golda Meir to גולדה מאיר? Mao Zedong to 毛泽东? It's complete and utter horseshit. No, reasonable people cannot disagree about this. There is nothing reasonable about the DONTUSEENGLISH position. I'm calling naked Emperor on this one, because apparently nobody else has the balls. --B2C 22:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(As an aside: By that reasoning, we should really move Mao Zedong to Mao Tse Tung.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC))
Of course there's a reasonable position. Just because you don't see it at first glance doesn't mean there isn't one. Dohn joe (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Không có gì hợp lý về việc sử dụng tên mà không phải là bằng tiếng Anh trong các tiêu đề của bài viết trong một tiếng Anh. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Liking accuracy is not JDLI. Strawman arguements are very weak. Obscenity and incivility is not welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy in Vietnamese — độ chính xác — is not accuracy in English, whether you like it or not. --В²C ☎ 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As technology advances, the world is generally moving away from the traditional inability (or laziness) in presenting names with diacritics and other accent marks. You can complain about how it "isn't English" all you want, you're just railing against reality. Resolute 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Where did that come from? I would have said the opposite. It's not taught in English schools, it's not used in places that have the ability to use diacritics and choose not to. People who move to English speaking countries tend to drop them from their own names. Where are you getting that the English speaking world is on fast-track to using them more and more? Here at wikipedia we use them more and more but that's us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Observation. Look at the credits of most movies these days - names include diacritics more often than not. I'm seeing it more often with athlete names - especially on ESPN and TSN's on-screen tickers (and in a couple cases, uniforms). The IIHF began adding diacritics to several of its publications a couple years ago. The Metro newspapers in Canada have begun using them. The City of Calgary is starting to add diacritics to place names (e.g. Métis Trail - and I should correct that on some related articles). Certainly Vietnamese accent marks are on an extreme end of this debate, but for French, Spanish/Latin American, Swedish and Finish names at the very, very least, it is growing increasingly common in my experience. Resolute 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC) @Fyunck(click): "Not taught in English schools?" Why do we care what schools in England in particular are doing? Diacritics are taught in schools in mostly English-language areas where there are also substantial minority languages in the area that require them (as is the case with Spanish in the American Southwest, for example). I learned how to properly use Spanish diacritics right around puberty for this reason, and I'm in my 40s. Today, given how easy diacritics are to produce in computer-produced papers and such, they're even more frequently taught as normal. Resistance to them is highly correlated with age and with multi-cultural experience. You, Blueboar, etc., are advacing what you think is some well-accepted principle of English language writing that simply does not exist outside your heads. Even the Chicago Manual of Style in recent editions, and other actually quite conservative style guides advocating usage of diacritics where they belong. Vietnamese is not magically different from Spanish or whatever; it simply happens to use more diacritics than Spanish or French, but that's a difference of degree, nothing more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Southern California schools do not teach them. They are not more frequently taught here at all. There is more mention of a few Spanish marks but the words are taught in the English alphabet. I see the school books and I know the teachers. But I don't really care and it doesn't really matter what any of us think as I keep saying. I came here to explain to B2C that it is a done deal here at wikipedia and that he should move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Four passive-aggressive posts in one thread in two days (that I see so far, and I'm not even looking closely) about how oppressed and hopeless you feel about the evil bad Manual of Style is getting to be a bit much. PS: If "there is more mention of a few Spanish marks" in the schools, then you've falsified your own claim that diacritics are not being taught in them. Next.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey it's one thing for schools to acknowledge they exist, it's quite another to actively teach them in their spelling lessons. I don't recall mentioning the MOS but thanks for the pep talk.... always appreciate your compliments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
And we neatly land at the important question here: So why shouldn't Wikipedia also acknowledge they exist? Of course you've mentioned MOS; substituting "it" and "that" in place of WP:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization and its AT-related counterpart, WP:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters doesn't magically un-refer to them; that's how pronouns work! You own your own emotions; it's not my job to pat you on the back for droning on with exaggerated and melodramatic statements here. If you have a problem with a WP guideline or the consensus process that arrived at it, then speak plainly and propose a change, don't bemoan, and hand-wring, and accuse others of censoring you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia "should" acknowledge they exist... I've not said otherwise in this exchange or elsewhere. I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. If you want to put words in my mouth on what I mean by "it" and "that" have fun, but they're your words not mine. I'm also not accusing others of censoring me nor am I proposing a change. I'm saying using diacritics in names and titles and banishing any mention of non-diacritic spellings is a done deal here. I may not like it but it was arrived at fair and square and that we should move on. If that bothers you... that's your problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what you're saying, though. You're presenting the "arrived at fair and square...we should move on" idea in a sarcastic, histrionically exaggerated way to foment controversy, and it's WP:POINTy. Let's just quote you verbatim a few times: "One thing that could stand an update is the section at WP:NOTCENSORED as it is untrue", "The Englsish spelling can't be mentioned anywhere", "I've learned to live with this censoring as part of the modern wikipedia so you should probably move on", "It is censorship. It is banishment", "there's nothing I can do... unless I want to get blocked." Shall I continue? That's less than half of the nonsensical, alarmist things you've said about this in an effort to drum up a feeling of "WP:NOT#CENSORED policy is being violated!" sentiment against WP:AT and WP:MOS. But not even Born2cycle believed you. As for those particular pages, AT and MOS, there are no other policy or guideline sources of rules regarding diacritics here, so I'm obviously not putting words in your mouth, I'm inferring the only plausible meaning. Whether I'm "bothered" or not would, yes, be my problem (I do believe in the "you own your own emotions" principle), but I'm not the only one objecting here to your "I'm being censored! The sky is falling!" message almost every time you post here. We're objecting not because it makes us feel bad or have some other emotional issue, but because it clouds and distracts the discussion itself. It's like trying to get work done when a co-worker, on 10x too much coffee, is wandering around the office shouting about how the building could collapse at any minute and kill us all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That is what I'm saying. It's fair and square, WP:Notcensored absolutely needs an update, and we should get a move on. As for your inferring, you are simply wrong with that "only plausible meaning" stuff. As I have said it's one thing to look at policy or guideline but it's quite another to know what is actually practiced in RfCs and RMs. It seems like this exact discussion here has happened so many times and the results are always the same as far as the original question on the move proposal. We should simply flip to the end of the book on that because it's a done deal. As far as the talk on tweaking the lead or adding pronunciations, that's a different part of the conversation here that I had no comment on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine. My purpose here isn't to argue with you for sport (especially not after recently trying to make some peace). Updating AT and MOS to more clearly reflect actual practice at RM doesn't require WP:POINTy changes to WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't see anyone here, not even other opponents of [this level of? this kind of?] diacritics agreeing with you that it's "censorship", and clear reasons why it isn't have been provided to you by multiple respondents here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue for me is this... with modern computer technology and publishing, English language sources are increasingly capable of using diacritics to present a non-western name. As this capability grows, more and more English language sources actually do use diacritics. Indeed we are quickly getting to the point where this is the norm. HOWEVER... there is a flip side to that... when a modern English Language source does not use diacritics, we have to assume that it intentionally chose not to do so. And when a significant number of sources all intentionally choose to present a name in a certain way, we are venturing into COMMONNAME territory. I suppose you could say that the OFFICIALNAME might well include diacritics, but the COMMONNAME does not. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Look, there is nothing new with using diacritics in English. We've been spelling flambé with the diacritic for decades, in English. So, yeah, when foreign words are adopted into English with the diacritics, we use diacritics. But that's not at all the same as opening the flood gates on all use of diacritics without regard to how those names are commonly referenced in English reliable sources, which is what seems to be going on here. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, that's badly broken logic. You cannot observe a trend in one direction and then claim that every failure to follow the trend is intentional. Even in cases where it is, AT/MOS has no reason to care at all; the "intention" may simply be laziness, or jingoism, or a desire to avoid complication for reason of expedience, or whatever. It does not represent any kind of "proof that English does not use diacritics". English has actually long used diacritics and only stops when a borrowed foreign usage becomes fully assimilated into English without the diacritic (e.g. rôle -> role); sometimes this doesn't happen (e.g. jalapeño, which has not conventionally become jalapeno much less jalapenio or jalapenyo, the way piñon has been sliding toward pinyon). English is using diacritics more, not less. The Blueboar/Born2cycle position also ignores the fact that different types of sources are more likely to use the proper diacritics than others, and even different author or populations of authors are less or more likely to do so, and that the older the source the less likely it is to use them, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
In principle I'm totally in agreement with you. But here's the thing. Regardless of where this trend is, we don't know where it's going. That's why we follow usage in reliable sources. Give preference to recent ones. Fine. For usage that readers today will find natural and recognizable, that makes sense. But we should not be on the bleeding edge of using diacritics (or anything else). The examples I'm talking about have no basis in English language reliable sources for using diacritics, and yet we use them. That's my problem. --В²C ☎ 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - (1) Hello. I was pinged above, but others have said well what I would have said. Thanks to them. I'll keep this brief, and let others continue.
(2) Born2cycle, I was misled by your use of duplicate signatures in this discussion to think that was a different editor ♚∰☕ supporting you.
(3) regarding WikiProject Vietnam's article body and title "history", as some of you will know, the editors who created en.wp's Vietnamese article corpus largely created or upgraded almost the entire WikiProject Vietnam article corpus both in body and title to full fonts as Unicode fonts became universal during 2005-2008. This process happened organically with many dozens of article contributors making the upgrades and creations, but was at a lag to the universal presence of the simplest accents (French, German, Spanish), and then the second set of Unicode fonts (Czech, Polish, etc.) found across the rest of the encyclopedia. The corpus was then retitled into basic ASCII during 2011 by one editor, making significant inappropriate use of db uncontroversial move requests. The corpus of geo articles was restored in a bot-advertised and well attended RfC at WP:VIETCON.
(4) A question: What language is this history book Vietnam - State, War, and Revolution (1945-1946) written in?, then What language is this Historical Dictionary of Vietnam (entry 'Confucianism') written in?. The choice of these two books is not random, David G. Marr is the doyen of modern historians of the Vietnamese independence movement and early communist party. His latest book illustrates his own trajectory from manually adding full Vietnamese to typewriter print, to early word-processors with no accents, to now full proofread Unicode; his trajectory is emblematic because it is an exemplary case of what has happened with other specialist academic's works. The second example, is similar but different: Bruce M. Lockhart, and ‎William J. Duiker's second (2006) edition Historical Dictionary of Vietnam has now been superseded by a third (2010), but it was the 2006 edition which marked the transition from ASCII to full Unicode (or rather Unicode plus proofreader, since it is the proofreader not the software which is the expense). The second article illustrates not same author upgrading in newer books, but same book upgrading in newer editions. The point though is the same, the technical limitations of fonts (less important or not important at all today), and costs/delays for publishers of proofreading (exponentially more important) are reducing, and the gap with Maltese and Lithuanian etc. narrowing or eliminated. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This should be simply a matter of following reliable sources. And following reliable sources implicitly means weighting the better sources over the worse sources. This does not mean "authoritative" sources win, in fact the most authoritative sources (birth certificates, government records) tend to be rejectable as they are primary sources. The best source is an independently, reputably published secondary source, itself referencing reliable sources. If such sources introduce the subject, in English, using diacritics, then probably Wikipedia should do the same. For an RM dispute, finding these sources should be easy, as they should be already listed in the reference list.
My observation is that RM questions become most disjointed, difficult to distil, and difficult for non-regulars to join, when they involve arguments based upon original research citing primary sources. And the biggest time wasting occurs when arguing over articles that don't even have any quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Use of diacritics in English isn't "nuts". Those editors who assert that it is may be delighted that the bio on former Chinese strongman isn't entitled "Dèng Xiǎopíng", but they miss out on the crucial distinction as to the use of Roman script language which is native versus an adjunct to pronunciation. We do not use "Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин" either. Clearly, the use of pinyin is rubbish except to aid pronunciation because Chinese has a native script, which is unidirectional in its use (you will know if you have ever tried reverse-engineering pinyin into sinograms). So it's quite correct that Chinese names in WP do not employ diacritics; we do not use the Cyrillic alphabet because it isn't Roman (and there have been no end of argument over Novak Djokovic).

    I'm not saying I support for use of Vietnamese diacritics without reservation, for I am as intimidated by their use as the next man, but it's quite something else to say or imply their use is trivia or fancruft. Au contraire. It is not a question of like or dislike, but their encyclopaedic value and thus forms part of our mission which includes, IMHO, attempting to impart accuracy of information. Reliable sources may continue to use names without diacritics, and there may be no need/rush to do so where there is no ambiguity, but that expediency (for whatever reason) doesn't prove whether they are right or wrong, and ought to be considered a matter of stylistic preference. However, we must avail ourselves of FL reliable sources to ensure that their diacritics are correctly applied when we do use them, in the same way that we would always elect for more accurate citations if we know the one in the article is materially incorrect. Titles with diacritics remain easy enough to find through the use of redirects. Whether diacritics usage is in a uniform manner across the project is not all that relevant because it seems obvious to me that will happen someday. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: your argument is a classic case of the specialist style fallacy. Of course specialist works on Vietnam or Vietnamese history or the Vietnamese language use diacritics. But that's not relevant. The relevant question is whether a general encyclopedia like the English Wikipedia should do so. Maybe it should; I have an open mind at present. However the arguments need to be based on relevant sources of styles. None of the "quality" newspapers on either side of the Atlantic whose sites I can access use the kind of diacritics necessary for Vietnamese. Quality magazines like National Geographic don't do so either. What is the evidence that this is anything other than a specialist style which, as SMcCandlish has so eloquently argued, is out of place in Wikipedia? "Đặng Hữu Phúc" compared to "Dang Huu Phuc" certainly fails the principle of least astonishment for the great majority of readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Peter coxhead, maybe, but this isn't the question is it. Do you know what the question is? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics. Wikipedia does not and, as an online, Unicode-based reference work, it need not reflect such archaic typographical limitations. This is the practice we follow with other Latin-alphabet languages (cf. Đurđa Adlešič, Jānis K. Bērziņš, Jiří Čeřovský, İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu, and Zoran Đinđić). — User:AjaxSmack

This is the question: As there is massive and consistent en.wp support for Slavonic diacritics such as Đurđa Adlešič, Jānis K. Bērziņš, Jiří Čeřovský, İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu, and Zoran Đinđić and 100% of all straightforward European bios are at full diacritics. This is not "astonishing", or "outrageous!" or "censorship" - this is en.wp consistent house MOS since Unicode became possible. You're, I see, a plant editor, and have contributions highlighted on your User page such as Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Fantastic, kudos. But even as an academic, and one who reads Latin, I could be "astonished", and "outraged", by the amount of botany-specific terminology in en.wp's plant articles. How do plant editors expect fans of Cuban music (another hat of this user) to negotiate all the specialist material and language in these articles? Well I'd guess they don't. So by the same token, when a WikiProject Vietnam editor creates/translates an article using Dục Đức to show the emperor's name is pronounced Zuck-Duck, and not Duck-Duck (D without a strike-through is a Z in Vietnamese) that editor is speaking to a constituency of article readers some of whom know enough about Vietnam to read "Zuck-Duck" and not "Duck-Duck", just as the classic case of WP:SNOW support at Talk:Lech_Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Requested_move 2005 is there to enable some readers to read "Va-wen-sa" not "Wo-lee-za". It will be that many readers read-past the ł and nasal ę, and read "Letsch Wolleeza", but otherwise they are not impacted, and the text remains completely transparent to non-specialists unlike Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. I would also suggest that any "bristle" response at encountering an Asian name is not entirely due to the diacritics, but also to the other unfamiliar factors (such as surname first. This too will not hurt readers who are genuinely interested in the article subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi and User:Peter coxhead, there are many ways to phrase the question ultimately at issue here, but isn't this one of them? Do we use diacritics as they are commonly used in reliable English sources, or do we use diacritics as they are used in specialist sources? --В²C ☎ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We use diacritics as they are used in non-English and specialist sources, unless it can be shown that an individual does not use it themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) and Peter coxhead: Right. There is no war between specialist and non-specialist sources, only between camps who believe that specialist sources saying that [style rule X] is required are law and non-specialist sources that don't use [style rule X] are crap, which is what happened in the bird capitalization debate, and most SSF debates. In the diacritics debate, there is no question that the diacritics are somehow incorrect; we know they're not. The main anti-diacritic position is that only specialist and no generalist reliable sources ever use them, which isn't true, and that they "thus" should not be used on en.wiki; this is a completely different sort of argument than that against capitalizing the common names of species or or job titles. It's much closer to the dashes and hyphens debates. There's a huge gulf between "our publication doesn't capitalize common names of species or capitalize job titles, because virtually all style guides agree on this point" and "our publication can't be bothered to use en-dashes or diacritics because we're in a hurry, they're not on the keyboards, and most of our readers don't care", which is what's going on with both lack of diacritics and lack of proper en-dash usage in many common, mainstream publications. The second anti-diacritics argument is that they're somehow a WP:ASTONISH problem, but English has been using diacritics in borrowed material for very long time (and even internally - the umlaut used to be somewhat commonly used in words like "coöperation", and poetry and music writing have long used acute or macron marks to indicate stress and full pronunciation of otherwise often elided syllables, and so on). There is no even vaguely literate reader of English who does not understand what diacritics are and that they can be safely ignored when they do not convey anything to you personally. Vietnamese is simply different by degree; it uses more diacritics than most languages, but there's nothing WP:ASTONISHing about their in-context use. Being astonished by the fact of how Vietnamese names and words are properly written is an astonishment about facts about the real world, like how big Megalodon teeth are or how fast sound waves travel. Approaching this from another angle entirely: Every style rule (well, every rule, really) has consequences. Permissiveness of José requires permissiveness of Ngọc, too. I'm certainly not going to sign up to tell Vietnamese we're going to censor it because Americans and Brits are more familiar with French and Spanish, so this other language can just go screw off, because some under-educated English speakers are somehow "astonished" when we treat its Latin-script orthography like that of any other Latin-script language. And see Obiwankenobi's comment below about sources incapable of rendering diacritics not being reliable sources for whether diacritics should be used; that rules out an enormous proportion of the non-diacritics sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to modulate that - it should be "Do we use diacritics as they are used in reliable english sources which themselves are capable of using diacritics". It is pointless to use a black and white book to argue about the color of Picasso's paintings, and in the same way it is pointless to use a source that never uses diacritics whether Francois should be spelled François. A WP:RS must be judged as reliable for the claim it is making; if the source itself is incapable of rendering diacritics - especially more complex ones, like Vietnamese, then we should not use it as a source for how to spell a title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Obi-Wan Kenobi, why should the reason for the non-use of the diacritics matter? What matters is what the sources that our readers are accustomed to reading actually use; not why. That's how we determine what is recognizable and natural to them.

Besides, isn't the "they would [use the complex diacritics] if they could [render them]" argument a violation of WP:CRYSTAL anyway? I mean, we can't really know if they would use them if they could, and we should not speculate, right? --В²C ☎ 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point; one might argue, if one only read low-MOS newspapers, that Hạ and Hà are actually the same name - but they're not. So on recognizeability, I think that point is granted, and it's possible that if we look at the bulk of sources, they would use Ha Anh and not Hạ Anh. But other WP:CRITERIA come into play as well. And, we also know that some sources - because of technical limitations or editorial cost - decide to NOT reproduce diacritics at all - thus the choice to eliminate diacritics on a single name was not taken, rather diacritics are eliminated globally. As such, I am not making a claim that source X which declines to use diacritics anywhere WOULD use diacritics for Vietnamese names IF IT COULD - rather I'm saying we have no idea, and so can't use that source to determine the correct spelling (in the same way we couldn't use a black and white book to determine the correct color of a Picasso painting). So it's not speculation, it's rather saying per WP:RS, this is not a good source for the correct/common spelling of the name. For me, a good source is one that USES diacritics, but then declines to do so for a particular entity. A simple example is Saint-Étienne - the correct way to spell it is with the accent on top of the 'E' - this diacritical mark changes the pronounciation so is not simply stylistic - but nonetheless you will find the accents on top of capital letters ignored in many sources, especially older ones, as the printing presses didn't have the capacity to do accents on top of the E. But should we move the city name accordingly? No, I don't think so. COMMONNAME was in my view meant to distinguish between different names, not different typographical renderings of the same exact name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it funny that always the old fallacy of quoting nonlatin titles as argument against diacritics resurfaces. Cyrillic or Chinese do not enter the issue at all. We are talking only Latin based scripts here. It has been established that, contrary to what those that want diacritics removed say, even the English language makes regular use of diacritics. Usage in English sources is overcoming the dark ages of technical inability. We being an encyclopedia should strive for correctness not taking people for stupid. The subject of Vietnamese has in particularly been talked to death on the relevant guideline pages and a previous situation where Vietnamese articles had been stripped of their diacritics was due to extensive sockpuppetry, hiding of previous relevant discussions and misrepresentation of sources. Do we really want to follow that lead? Agathoclea (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Agathoclea, I find it funny that you try to paint the debate as if it is about using diacritics or not using diacritics. That's a strawman argument obviously won by the side arguing that we use diacritics.

      What the debate is about is the extent to which we use diacritics. In particular, do we use them to the full extent technically possible, or do we use them only to the extent that they are commonly used in English reliable sources?

      The reason the nonlatin titles examples are used is to stress the absurdity of the "to the full extent technically possible" argument. I mean, if we are not going to draw the line at "commonly used in English reliable sources" for diacritic use on Latin titles, then why draw the line at Latin titles? Why not use nonlatin titles when appropriate? After all, the nonlatin title is often more accurate, and it's technically possible. That's the same argument used for crossing the "commonly used in English reliable sources" line in order to defend full use of diacritics. --В²C ☎ 18:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason to draw the line there is because latin characters, even with diacritics, are considered nonetheless legible to english speakers, whereas cryllic or arabic would not be. OTOH, even there we have made exceptions, there was a big debate that ended with Li_(surname_李), since it was decided the chinese character was the best way of disambiguating, and that was the method that reliable sources used.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a valid response, though I suggest the legibility of "Đặng Hữu Phúc" compared to "Dang Huu Phuc", for most English readers, can be legitimately questioned. Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" really significantly less legible than, say, "Владимир Ильич Ленин"? Anyway, I was simply explaining why nonlatin examples are given.

Li_(surname_李) is quintessential WP:IAR. A truly unusual and special case; that's all. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree Li is a great example of IAR, and I supported the use of chinese characters there for IAR reasons for the most part. Ultimately it's Vietnamese that gets the short end of the stick here, as noted before no-one complains about the occasional José or even rôle or coöpt, indeed we have a whole article devoted to the subject of english words which are written with diacritics. Vietnamese, however, with its huge number of diacritics, and multiple diacritics, is sometimes seen as shocking to, shall we say, "western" eyes, and some have pointed out that there are sources which use western european diacritics but NOT vietnamese ones. This is a reasonable argument, and I would not suggest use of VN diacritics for every VN page. I nonetheless think that "Đặng Hữu Phúc" is significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин" - I don't need to know vietnamese script to know that is roughly Dang Huu Phuc, whereas I'd need to know cryllic to know that В is actually pronounced like a "V".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I won't dispute that. I think we have an understanding. The "wide open" acceptance of diacritics in titles does not necessarily open the door to the use of nonlatin titles, though much of the argument used to defend broad diacritic would also apply to use of nonlatin titles. I suggest diacritic proponents stress the use of latin alphabets along with diacritics and the recognizability aspect when defending broad diacritic use. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
exactly, and except in very special cases I would oppose the use of non-Latin characters in titles - even the Icelandic ones are pushing it a bit but I'm not riled up enough to go after them, is 'eth' is a Latin character? As for the example I gave above re:sources that use diacritics but decline to for certain names, I remember in one of the VN move discussions we found exactly that - books which used full VN diacritics for some lesser known names but declined to use those same diacritics for much more famous names which had therefore achieved English-language exonym status more or less. In that instance we can infer an editorial decision, as they clearly had the capacity to use diacritics but declined to for some common words like Saigon and Vietnam. If the sources uses no diacritics at all it's impossible to determine any editorial choice for a specific name however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: 'Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин"?' Yes, of course it is. Any other pointless questions?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree it is significantly more legible. I know that if I work at it I can figure out the former but not the later. However Dang HuRu Phuc is likewise significantly more legible than Đặng Hữu Phúc. Something like that I usually just skim over and don't really strain my eyes to try and read. And if you have some visual impairment, forget it completely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You're seriously going to try to make a WP:ACCESSIBILITY "eye-strain" argument here? I'm sure it would be convenient for readers in some sense if we changed Đặng Hữu Phúc to Dang HuRu Phuc (and Lech_Wałęsa to Lech Vawensa, and Dục Đức to Zuc Duc, but last I looked we don't make up transliterations to aid understanding of pronunciation, much less move articles to such inventions. That's not even related to the argument for using Dang Huu Phuc, Lech Walesa and Duc Duc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would we want to make up transliterations? I was simply saying it's more legible in its non-diacritic state. That's all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What I find interesting about these style debates is the way in which evidence that counts in one debate doesn't count in another. No-one seems to be able to refute my claims that:

  • high quality, style-conscious, non-specialist sources do not use Vietnamese diacritics
  • style manuals do not recommend the use of such diacritics.

– It's irrelevant that generalist sources use other diacritics; we aren't discussing the occasional use of the accents found in French or Spanish or "double dots" in English or German. There's a huge difference between "Zoë" and "Đặng Hữu Phúc". Permissiveness of "José" or "Zoë" does not imply permissiveness of "Đặng Hữu Phúc", any more than the permissiveness of "Đặng Hữu Phúc" implies the permissiveness of "Владимир Ильич Ленин". To argue either of these cases is an example of the "slippery slope fallacy". We have to decide, based on usage in reliable encyclopedia-standard sources and appropriate style guides where to draw a line – a fuzzy line, sure, but nevertheless a line. As I noted before, I've an open mind on "Đặng Hữu Phúc", but would like to see better arguments.

– WP:ASTONISH does not apply to facts, but to the way we write. Clearly it's right and proper to clarify in an article that the person whose name is written in Vietnamese as "Đặng Hữu Phúc" is intended and not someone else whose name is the same once the diacritics are removed. The question is different: after that has been made clear, once, is it necessary in running text to continue to write "Đặng Hữu Phúc" rather than "Dang Huu Phuc" (or some other agreed transcription)? If it's not necessary, than WP:ASTONISH does apply. This remark doesn't sound like respect for our readers to me: I'm certainly not going to sign up to tell Vietnamese we're going to censor it because Americans and Brits are more familiar with French and Spanish, so this other language can just go screw off, because some under-educated English speakers are somehow "astonished" when we treat its Latin-script orthography like that of any other Latin-script language. The contrary argument could be that we're censoring the normal use in English of Vietnamese names without diacritics because over-educated Wikipedia editors think it's good for other English speakers regardless of what they are able to read easily. Neither argument is helpful. There is clearly a trend to use more diacritics in English; I'm still doubtful that at present "Đặng Hữu Phúc" passes the test of use in reliable generalist sources. (The comparison with hypens and en-dashes is irrelevant; repeated evidence shows that few editors other than Wikipedia regulars notice the difference.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-English titles - arbitrary break

I've already addressed most of this (see reply 2 of 3 in that post), and the reason why the Vietnamese diacritics example isn't comparable to the Cyrillic script example was covered by someone else already, too. But let's look at external style guides. MOS isn't dependent on them, but it doesn't totally ignore them either. I'll start with Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 2010):

11.94 Diacritics——specialized versus general contexts
Nearly all systems of transliteration require diacritics—including, in the languages discussed below, macrons, underdots, and overdots, to name just a few. Except in linguistic studies or other highly specialized works, a system using as few diacritics as are needed to aid pronunciation is easier on readers, publisher, and author. Most readers of a nonspecialized work on Hindu mythology, for example, will be more comfortable with Shiva than Śiva or with Vishnu than Viṣṇu, though many specialists would want to differentiate the Sh in Shiva from the sh in Vishnu as distinct Sanskrit letters. For nonspecialized works, the transliterated forms without diacritics that are listed in any of the latest editions of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries are usually preferred by readers and authors alike.

Two crucial problems with this from the "down with diacritics" viewpoint are:
  1. Two of the three rationales against diacritics it advances are not valid here. WP as a publisher has no difficulty with diacritics. Editors ("authors") here don't either, since their use isn't mandatory; if you write "Dang Huu Phuc" someone else can correct it later, and you won't be "fired".
  2. The two examples given (aside from rather suspiciously picking on Hindu names in particular for no apparent reason) are cases where a heterogenous digraph ("ch" in both cases) is replaced with a single character with a diacritic. The thing is, either of these would actually be a different name for WP:COMMONNAME purposes! The type of case that Chicago explicitly objects to doesn't actually arise here. This debate is about the choice between Śiva and Viṣṇu vs. Siva and Visnu, not between Shiva and Vishnu vs. either of the former. The analysis is not even closely related. To return to the comparison between this and other style debates, it's akin to the difference between an argument for "Grevy's zebra" vs. "Grévy's zebra" (whether to use the diacritic) and an argument for "Zebra" whether or not the diacritic is used (i.e., an argument about whether to change the name in a different way, here by capitalizing the species name; or between an argument for Wilkes-Barr vs. Wilkes–Barr (whether to use hyphen or a dash) and an argument for "Wilkes Barr" (a different kind of change, a declaration that the name is not a compound at all). Chicago does not illustrate a case against use of diacritics where the underling alphabetic orthography is unchanged. As it turns out, quite the opposite is true when we read more.

Let's explore Chicago's reasoning in more detail:

11.91 Transliteration
In nonspecialized works it is customary to transliterate——that is, convert to the Latin alphabet, or romanize——words or phrases from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet. These languages include Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, Russian, and other living languages as well as ancient languages such as Greek and Sanskrit. For discussion and illustration of scores of alphabets, see Peter T. Daniels and William Bright, eds., The World’s Writing Systems (bibliog. 5). For alphabetic conversion, the most comprehensive resource is the Library of Congress publication ALA-LC Romanization Tables (bibliog. 5), available online. Do not attempt to transliterate from a language unfamiliar to you.

The most interesting points here:
  1. The LoC ALA-LC Romanization Tables Chicago defers to use diacritics. Their ottoman.pdf for Ottoman Turkish, for example, is not much less complicated than the use of Vietnamese diacritics being vented about above.
  2. This passage directly contradicts the previously quoted one, and this is the passage where Chicago actually cites sources instead of making pronouncements without backing them up. Here Chicago says that for nonspecialized works to transliterate, and to do so following rules that, it turns out, make extensive use of diacritics. In the previous section, they suggesting avoiding transliteration with diacritics in nonspecialized writing, but limited their examples to cases where the base orthography was altered in ways that might confuse readers.

And aren't we forgetting something here? Vietnamese isn't being transliterated; today, it's actually written natively like "Đặng Hữu Phúc"; that's not an approximation of something written in some other script. How does Chicago approach actual foreign-language, Latin-script material? They consistently advise the use of its native, diacritic-extended orthography.

11.15 African special characters
Swahili uses no additional letters or diacritics. Among the more than two thousand other African languages, however, many rely on diacritics and phonetic symbols to stand for sounds that cannot be represented by letters or combinations of letters. Hausa, which is spoken by millions of people across western Africa, requires the following special characters (see also table 11.1):
Ɓ ɓ, Ɗ ɗ, Ƙ ƙ, Ƴ ƴ [...]

11.17 Albanian special characters
Since 1972 a single, unified Albanian orthography has been in use. The following special characters are needed for Albanian:
Ç ç, Ë ë

And on and on, language after language. Curiously they actually omit Vietnamese entirely, and later have a section that indicates they're simply unaware of modern Vietnamese orthography:

16.86 Indexing Vietnamese names
Vietnamese names consist of three elements, the family name being the first. Since Vietnamese persons are usually referred to by the last part of their given names (Premier Diem, General Giap), they are best indexed under that form. [...]

Nowhere does Chicago say not to use Vietnamese diacritics; they're never mentioned once, as the book's editors did not appear to be aware that the language uses diacritics, and/or its pages of specific-language examples were intended to be illustrative not exhaustive. So, Chicago doesn't say not to use them, and in every other Latin-script foreign-language case it says do use them.

Conclusion: Analysis of everything relevant in Chicago Manual of Style, current ed., supports (including for Vietnamese and other diacritic-inflected, Latin-script languages that Chicago doesn't specifically address by name) the pro-diacritics position that WP's consensus has evolved toward since the widespread adoption of Unicode, with the sole exception of replacing digraphs (or presumably any longer letter combinations) with single diacritic-inflected letters, which WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't sanction anyway.

What style guide should we look at next? I have all mine out of storage now. Oxford/Hart's? NB: Journalistic ones like the Guardian and NYT guides are questionably relevant, since WP is not written in news style and half the reason this debate exists is that journalism publishers are mostly driven by expediency in the rush to press, and do not often avail themselves of the easier-and-easier technology for Unicode that's now build into OSes and word processors.

PS, re: WP:ASTONISH: Not a single principle at the page Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment is being violated here. The title with diacritics does not require "struggle" to parse, only perhaps some curiosity about what the marks may signify and occasional irritation of some who hate diacritics. No one will be "shocked... or overwhelmingly confused", nor even "surprised" in any way intended by the wording there (it emphatically does not mean "surprise that Vietnamese uses diacritics" or "surprise that Vietnamese uses lots of diacritics" or "surprise that WP doesn't delete diacritics"; the essay concerns itself with manipulative language intended to mislead the reader. It is not "provocative language in descriptions or arguments". As advised, it does "Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult", and perhaps most importantly it also does ensure that the editor will "put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject", by not presuming familiarity with Vietnamese names, and informing readers at a glance, simply by including the diacritics, that "Đặng Hữu Phúc" may not be pronounced "Dang Huu Phuc", and that they might want to go to the article and see if it provides pronunciation information, if the reader cares about the pronunciation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
First, I just want to note that our Đặng Hữu Phúc article doesn't actually provide pronunciation information. That is a flaw ... but one that is easily fixed by adding a short parenthetical to the opening sentence. Of course, that opens a second question... once you do add pronunciation information, is there a need for the diacritics? I have never bought into the argument that we need diacritics in order to indicate pronunciation... since there are other way to indicate pronunciation (ways that the average English speaking reader will be more familiar with). Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
First, many such articles lack pronunciation info. Even a major deity article like Vishnu. It didn't even provide the Sanskrit version of the name at all! Had to add that myself a few hours ago. Many of our articles are half-baked; that doesn't tell us anything about what best practice is with regards to diacritics. Diacritics are also used for more than pronunciation. The fact that you can add a pronunciation guide (for the few people who understand IPA) or add an audio file (for those who can hear) isn't some kind of "gotcha!" against diacritics. As just one example, they're frequently used in Spanish to distinguish between words that are spelled the same but have no pronunciation difference at all. In some languages (including Vietnamese) they indicate tone. In others they're different letters of the alphabet (n vs. ñ but not a vs. á in Spanish again – an example of a language with few diacritics which uses them nonetheless in completely different ways), and so on. They're not all the same thing. And none of that addresses the fact that a name with and without the diacritics simply is not the same name in many languages. It's just not good enough that most readers don't know the difference. Most readers don't know the difference between two subspecies of newt, but we don't wrongly call the one by the name of the other. Same principle. "Résumé" means a simple curriculum vitae; "resume" means "pick up where one left off"; not the same word, no matter how many cases you can find of diacritics-free publications spelling the former without its diacritics.

Second, you didn't have a second point, and my own second one would be that you didn't respond substantively to anything in my detailed, sourcing-related post there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, that may be the most cogent explanation of some of the thorny diacritics issues that seem never to be addressed - certainly better than I could have (or have) done. What's best for our readers should always be at the forefront. It does no good to impart information if we do it in a way that alienates our readership. Numerous respected publications aimed at a general audience handle diacritics in all manner of ways. Shouldn't we have that conversation here at WP? Dohn joe (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar, for better or worse bios such as Václav Havel "(Czech pronunciation: [ˈvaːt͡slav ˈɦavɛl] ( listen)", are the exception. We don't have enough IPA proficient editors to add pronunciation, to geo articles also. However en.wp does provide pronunciation for some Vietnam bio leads such as Dục Đức "(育德 pronounced [zùk͡p̚ ʔɗúk͡p̚] zup-duck)," - and you'll note 育德, the old Sino-Vietnamese characters, his name means "Education Morality", are also given. But then many readers find the actual real Unicode more helpful than the IPA. Unlike English, most Latin languages Polish, Czech and Vietnamese are WYSIWYG. I say "most", but it may be "all", since I don't know of any Latin alphabet language other than English which isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
French is far less WYSIWYG than English, with many terminal grammatical agreements not pronounced in most circumstances. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish, back to your comments on this actual policy, WP:AT. I don't think there's anything that needs editing here. The only bit in our conventions which is at odds with en.wp editor consensus and practice (aka article reality) is the word "general" in "follow the general usage in reliable sources" at WP:DIACRITICS (my strike). No one follows "general" usage even in the three diacritic examples used in WP:AT, and the word "general" there has more than once been a landmine for new editors to come to grief (friction with project editors) if they innocently follow it. Usually these days if we see "general usage" for fonts cited at RMs an SPI follows. The word "general" should be struck as misleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed. Pre-'pology: Sorry this is long, but there's a lot to cover. In fairness, Peter coxhead (talk · contribs) raises a valid concern, that it's not entirely clear what "general" or "generalist" or "generalized" or "general-audience" (whatever) sources are and when they're more valuable than "specialist" or "specialized" ones, for what, and why. (I can answer that, and made some half-asleep attempts at it earlier, above, but it'll need more). It's is obviously a bigger set of questions than the diacritics issue, and involves WP:MOS and WP:RS more than WP:AT, which is only affected by it is as a trickle-down effect from MOS. It's partly my own "fault", for writing WP:SSF, that it arises in as often in does in the terms it does, but its probably better to get it aired sooner than later. In the interim, there's no particular reason to retain language like "general" where it causes more problems than it solves.

    On the particular issue area of diacritics, what we mostly need to look at is whether sources like other encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, slow-deadline news publications (e.g. monthlies), that are not heavily right-wing slanted (i.e. anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, anti-non-English usage) are doing, and how this is changing since the advent of Unicode. What USA Today or The Guardian are doing is of little use in informing what WP should be doing.

    On the micro-topic of Vietnamese names in particular, it's really a different sort of question, one of how that language is written. If, as seems to be the reliably sourceable case, Sino-Vietnamese ideograms have generally been abandoned for diacritic-inflected Latin script, then WP is pretty much bound to use it (even if it notes the way to write the names in the other script, for completeness). Because there's already a general consensus (via not just piles of RMs but also MOS:DIACRITICS and WP:DIACRITICS) to go with diacritics in Latin-script languages, unless we have reliable sources against a particular use, there doesn't seem to be a defensible case for opposing diacritics in Vietnamese in particular; that language is just the furthest-extreme consequence of the community decisions toward supporting diacritics, the "worse that can happen" from a visual clutter or "surprise" viewpoint. If we want to revisit that general decision in big RfC, even on the basis that Vietnamese somehow proves it problematic, then let's do so, but again based primarily upon high-quality, post-Unicode sources that are not driven by expedience like daily newspapers and online news sources, much less based on pre-Unicode publications for which using diacritics properly was difficult and mostly avoided.

    The "specialist source" problem doesn't really arise here at all. No one is making the argument that Greek or Vietnamese or whatever names should have diacritics here because linguistics journals or foreign language learning manuals use them in their contexts and that more general sources either do likewise or are faulty garbage, the kind of argument the SSF depends on. Rather, we know that some regular ol' mainstream sources do use the diacritics and some don't. That "expert" or "specialist" sources also do so is a given and irrelevant, because it's not the source of the motivation to do it here; it's not a WP:FACTION of Vietnamese phoneticians and translators telling the rest of WP to go screw itself; the motivation is coming from all sorts of Wikipedians of all editing interests who are seeing a positive set of rationales for using diacritics. The fact that any weekly or monthly community magazine or tabloid in a highly multicultural city like San Francisco or Toronto is likely to use diacritics is more important here than any "specialist sources". No one seems to be consulting any of the latter in this debate at all. Who's been citing Vietnamese language books and Southeast Asian linguistics journals? Anyone? This is a cultural and post-modern meta-cultural discussion more than a specialists vs. general readership issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

All good points, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, one thing about your post really bugged me and I think it needs an explanation. "what we mostly need to look at is whether sources like other encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, slow-deadline news publications (e.g. monthlies), that are not heavily right-wing slanted are doing." Sorry but something really doesn't sit right if those are the parameters. Shall we also exclude those types of publications if they are heavily left-wing? That leaves us with only centrist publications but one person's centrist publication is another's left or right wing dribble. Who is going to sit in judgement on which encyclopedia, dictionary or publication is too extreme to use as a source? That's kinda scary imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not making a political argument, I'm making a factual observational argument that right-wing publications, because of their politics, are apt to ignore diacritics for point-making reasons, while lefty ones have no such "fuck off immigrants, and learn English, you job-stealing scum" agenda. (FWIW, I'm an anti-authoritarian political centrist with equal scathing disdain for far-left and far-right politics; see my bashing of lefty political correctness in the "we must capitalize 'indigenous' in reference to Australians" nonsense at WT:MOSCAPS). And besides, my opinion on the matter doesn't set policy; the logic of the rest of my argument is severable from this particular point, and consensus on reasoning that my arguments pertain to is what will set policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank goodness. I thought you might be biased on what publications we should use as sources at wikipedia based on their political leaning. What was I thinking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Same goes for liberal sources on which they're ridiculously biased pro or con.
@SMcCandlish: I think you're mis-using Chicago above. It provides detailed advice on how to use diacritics in different languages in those circumstances when it advises they should be used. The details of that advice are not relevant here until the main issue is settled. The relevant injunction is "Except in linguistic studies or other highly specialized works, a system using as few diacritics as are needed to aid pronunciation is easier on readers" (we all agree that publishers and authors aren't the issue here, and no-one has been arguing otherwise).
You make an important point above a name with and without the diacritics simply is not the same name in many languages. This is the main reason why I'm not sure about the best policy. It's clear that an article must establish precisely who or what it's about (precision is a key requirement), and for Vietnamese names this will require the full set of diacritics to be used. But is it then necessary to keep using these? There's an analogy here, it seems to me, with English and scientific names for species. An article under the English name typically begins "Blogg's duck (Anser bloggii) is ..." and then goes on to use only the English name having established by the scientific name the precise species meant. An article about a Vietnamese person or place that has a name commonly used in English without diacritics can do the same, i.e. start "Dang Huu Phuc (Đặng Hữu Phúc) is ..." and then use "Dang Huu Phuc" in running text. Why would this be a problem? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Peter Coxhead, it would be a problem for the same reason "Francois Mitterrand (François Mitterrand)..." would be a problem. Wikipedia doesn't do that, and the last editor that did it got blocked. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"Francois Mitterrand" and "François Mitterrand" do not refer to two different people - the diacritic is not required to identify the topic. Apparently, this is not the case in other languages. However, in other languages is key here. The question should always be... how is this topic referred to in English? (and if there are no English reliable sources that refer to this topic, I would argue that the topic is not sufficiently notable to be in the English WP). And it doesn't matter if the reason the English RS don't use diacritics is because of technological limitations. If no diacritics is what most English readers see when reading about the topic in question, that's what we should reflect, regardless of the reason that the diacritics aren't used in the RS. We should not be on the potential forefront of anything, including the use of diacritics. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
and if there are no English reliable sources that refer to this topic, I would argue that the topic is not sufficiently notable to be in the English WP Wow, that is the most clear demonstration of why systemic bias persists in this wiki that I've yet to see. The language the sources are in has NOTHING to do with notability. Nothing. As in, NADA (see Wikipedia:NONENG#Non-English_sources. There are topics which are ONLY sufficiently covered in Chinese texts thousands of years old, but the fact that some western scholar hasn't yet translated those texts does not mean those topics are not notable!! Again, you're using this term "in English" - as if the use of diacritics suddenly renders something non-english. We have diacritics that are accepted spellings for english-language words, and we accept use of diacritics for proper names of subjects, places, etc. The introduction to this recent history is instructive, I think and indicates the sort of thinking we should be doing here: "Vietnamese is a tonal language written in an adapted version of the Latin alphabet with additional diacritical marks to signify particular tons and vowel qualities. Without these diacritics, the meaning of a Vietnamese word is ambiguous. For this reason I have chosen to include diacritical marks in this book to most accurately represent terms, locations, and people's names. ... I opted to keep all Vietnamese diacritical marks with the exception of widely known geographical names such as Vietnam, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and Saigon." this is a perfect example of what I pointed out above - when you have a source that has the editorial and technological capacity to render diacritics, and then CHOOSES NOT TO for certain proper nouns - that is a very good indication that Wikipedia might consider doing the same - which is why I wouldn't support moving Saigon to Sài Gòn. I don't think wikipedia is on the forefront of anything by using diacritics, many of the sources we rely upon are doing so already - and sources that cover Vietnam are more and more using Vietnamese diacritics, however with exceptions like the book I just cited. It's not all-or-nothing.
As for this: And it doesn't matter if the reason the English RS don't use diacritics is because of technological limitations., I must again disagree. A great number of books have been published without using color, because of the expense of doing so. However, it would be ridiculous of us to say "Well, most people have only seen black and white repros of Picasso's blue-period work, thus we are better off reproducing it in black and white". We do have the technological capacity to render diacritics in a way which is legible and consumable by modern browsers, and doing so causes no issues for the readers, I've yet to see an upswell of reader complaints - and more importantly, it hasn't been demonstrated by anyone why Vietnamese is different - it is simply a matter of degree, not of type. Icelandic diacritics and some eastern european ones can be just as frightening to those not used to such marks, but we use them anyway...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC) @Born2cycle: How these topics are referred to in English is variable from publication to publication, not uniformly diacritics-free, and this has already been shown in RM after RM and in previous larger debates that lead to WP:NCVIET (and similar pages on other languages' names). Harping on this question as if unanswered doesn't make it unanswered. Your "if there are no English reliable sources that refer to this topic, I would argue that the topic is not sufficiently notable to be in the English WP" has nothing to do with this debate, or with AT/MOS discussions at all, but is a WP:N argument (and one that also was settled years ago; you're revealing how little you really know about WP policy and its formation). Third, asserting that the reasons (e.g. technological, even political) for lack of diacritics in a lot of English sources "doesn't matter" hasn't been supported. Simply repeating it without actually making a defensible argument in support of it doesn't constitute a policy position, just a tedious noise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead:: Misusing Chicago? I quoted the entire passage, including the important fact that the entire section illustrates nothing but cases where diacritics are used to replace digrams, i.e. change the name in a way that an English-speaker can no longer even approximate it without specialist knowledge (in the two cases, the typical English-language native would expect the pronunciations to be something along the lines of "Seeva" and "Viznoo"). It's a completely different kind of case, and that section comes after nearly 100 pages of excruciating detail on the diacritics in language after language. It's pretty obvious to me that the page in question was written by someone else than those working on the previous pages, and in its wording failed to account for them and their purpose. But even taken at face value, it doesn't militate against use of diacritics as WP has been using them, and especially not for Vietnamese ones, because most Vietnamese names are not really pronounced anything like their spellings without diacritics (perhaps a strong argument for a new orthographic system, but that's not WP's position to take). I.e., Vietnamese, even more so than many other languages, is one where "diacritics ... are needed to aid pronunciation", in the words of the passage you quote. All that said (and @User:Born2cycle, too), I do get the common name (species name) analogy, rough as it is. The only problem I have with a lead beginning "Dang Huu Phuc (Đặng Hữu Phúc)" is, as In inctu oculi points out, it serves as an argument for "Francois Mitterrand (François Mitterrand)", etc., and we already have a broad consensus not to do that (or it would be only a restriction against Vietnamese, which will be interpreted as a racist restriction, no matter how it's motivated). I've said twice already that the only difference here between Vietnamese names and others with diacritics is one of degree, and no one has refuted this or even attempted to. Some people are "surprised" by the real-world fact that Vietnamese uses more diacritics than many other languages, and this is like being surprised by how deep the ocean is or how fast bamboo grows; it doesn't indicate that we have to change how we write our articles on Vietnamese people, the ocean or bamboo to be "less surprising" in some way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: on Chicago, we'll have to agree to differ, noting that complex manuals like this, serving different audiences and different kinds of publication, can be used to provide evidence for different positions. I entirely agree that the main difference between Vietnamese and, say, French is one of degree. If you are implying that it doesn't matter because it's "only" a matter of degree, then I disagree. The more diacritics that are used, the more problems created for most English readers. Our job is to choose where to draw a (fuzzy) line – before or after Vietnamese. Adding in @In ictu oculi: to argue that "Dang Huu Phuc (Đặng Hữu Phúc)" is the same as or licences "Francois Mitterrand (François Mitterrand)" is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. (And vaguely threatening remarks like Wikipedia doesn't do that, and the last editor that did it got blocked are not the way to conduct a sensible collegiate discussion.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Peter coxhead, that's the second time you've invoked "fallacy", a word which has limited effect as a rhetorical flourish when used outside of the of argument structure, and is not a distinctive hallmark of collegiate discussion. You were asked a question above: "As there is massive and consistent en.wp support for Slavonic diacritics such as Đurđa Adlešič, Jānis K. Bērziņš, Jiří Čeřovský, İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu, and Zoran Đinđić and 100% of all straightforward European bios are at full diacritics" why should some of the participants in this discussion be selectively focusing on Asians. That was the question you were asked. The same question is raised by your statement that from "Dang Huu Phuc (Đặng Hữu Phúc)" to "Francois Mitterrand (François Mitterrand)" is a slippery slope. By this I take it to mean that you see French people's names are at the top/bottom of some kind of incline, and Vietnamese people's names are at the inverse end of the incline. While that might actually be true in some contexts, and I live with the cost curve of proofreading at a university publishers, the question of whether there is, or should be, a slope among Latin alphabet languages where we receive some and not others is exactly the question that comes up again and again. So rather than re-asking it, why not answer it? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that there is "massive and consistent en.wp support for Slavonic diacritics". In my experience, there is a strident and fairly well-organized effort made by a very small number of editors to push their pro-diacritics position at those articles. It's the same names every time. There are also objections made at every advertised discussion, and these objections are made by a wide variety of editors. The difference is that they aren't either dedicated enough or organized enough to show up at every discussion on the subject to re-re-re-state their views. In fact, I suspect that if you ran a poll among a random sample of editors (which obviously is not how we do things at the English Wikipedia), you'd find that a clear majority of editors, and an even stronger majority of English-speaking readers, would prefer "plain" letters for almost all (or possibly all) articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, no, with respect the evidence of Talk page discussions and RMs suggests you're wrong; and the weight of 100,000s of articles and 100s of RM discussions and Talk page discussions is against your analysis. Evidentially the number of editors who actively object to seeing a Polish name on a Polish bio is no greater than the number of shoppers who actively object to walking past a Polski Sklep in Polish Downtown (Chicago) or London's Ealing. Any editor contributing/creating bio articles knows this - and it isn't "a well-organized effort made by a very small number of editors" (conpiracy theory?) it's the entire editor corpus of major article-generating projects like Geography, Olympics, Baseball, Football and Hockey. This is before one gets into the country WikiProjects. In terms of "strident", that's a contradiction, why would the majority of editors need to be strident. In this discussion for example all the "fucking" and "bullshit" has been coming from one active and consistent anti-diacritics Talk space editor (which took him back to ANI again). Is repeated "fucking" not strident? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
IIO, the thing is, I have seen hundreds of these RMs, and I have seen your name in a remarkable number of them during the last year or two (not only yours, but definitely yours), and not merely in one or two subject areas.
By the way, did you know that you've personally moved about four thousand articles by now? Quite a number of these, like Étienne de Mauléon (Bishop of Oloron), don't even have talk pages. Many that do have talk pages contain only WikiProject tags. In fact, in my quick spot check of about 20 articles that did have talk pages, I saw you start zero discussions about your moves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes User:WhatamIdoing, I am a supporter of a consistent use of full Unicode for BLPs. I became a supporter following a comment I considered unpleasant seen in passing at a Hungarian tennis RM. Prior to that I was unaware of the issue , and was simply creating articles, including many 100s of historical bio stubs. Since I have answered your question, is it acceptable to ask if you yourself have you significantly contributed to a European bio article on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for noting Talk:Étienne de Mauléon (Bishop of Oloron) had no Talk page, I usually create these - must have created 1000s by now, adding WP Biography and WP project tags. WP:FRMOS requires accents on French articles, and WP:MOVE indicates that article moves that are entirely non-controversial can simply be done. There would be anywhere between 200-400,000 articles in the WP France article corpus. If you find any that don't follow WP:FRMOS you are encouraged to upgrade them. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The exact same argument can be made about the anti-diacritics crowd; it's the same three MOS gadflies, the same couple of sports editors, and another familiar name or two, at virtually every RM and AT/MOS discussion about this, trotting out the same already-dismissed arguments. If you go back a couple of years you find that the names are mostly different on both sides. At any given time on any style or naming issue there are a limited number of editors who know and care enough to involve themselves in a discussion like this consistently, pro or con, so they always seem to turn up, and seem conspiratorial to the other side, who are always more attuned to what they can cast as obsessive behavior rather than to examining their own. These knots of editors slowly change over time.

Every RM is a poll, and RMs have been increasingly leaning toward diacritics as use of Unicode has spread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:: Not every slippery slope argument is the slippery slope fallacy. (For example, the very real slippery slope of government censorship and privacy invasion tending to increase in intensity and broaden in scope, after any narrow kind is permitted, is a central facet of US First Amendment and (to the extent we still have any) Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.) We know for a fact that any rule at WP will extrapolated as far as the community will tolerate, no matter what it is about. I mean, really, that's the argument being made against Vietnamese diacritics, isn't it - it's "going too far", i.e. a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is not fallacious in any way on this, in either direction. But that's not the main argument here. It's that any "fuzzy line" drawn with Vietnamese on the "do not" side will have virtually nothing else on that side. Regardless of the intent, it's going to be seen as a "down with Vietnamese" move. The question before us which way we want the slope to slip: A) toward not having any rules against diacritics (or perhaps the same one Chicago illustrates but doesn't spell out - don't replace multiple letters with a single diacritic-marked letter, and this would apply to Irish and many other languages which two sets of orthography); or B) toward no diacritics at all. No kinda-sorta-maybe approach that excludes a handful of languages (none of them Western, notably) is going to be stable. Finally, what "more problems" created for English readers? A Serbian or Turkish name with four diacritics in it is exactly the same [non-]problem in it for our readers than a Vietnamese one with four. Readers ignore diacritics they don't understand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Aid to Pronunciation" argument

Let's discuss the "diacritics are needed to aid pronunciation", issue a bit more. I have never agreed with this argument. I don't think the TITLE of an article is the correct place to explain pronunciation (if there is a need to explain pronunciation that should be done somewhere in the text). I'm not arguing that we should ban diacritics in titles... merely that the "aid pronunciation" argument for allowing them in Titles is flawed. There may be other arguments for allowing/disallowing diacritics in titles but pronunciation is not one of them. So no matter where we come down on the use of diacritics, we would never have titles like: "Dang Huu Phuc (Đặng Hữu Phúc)" or Francois Mitterand (François Mitterrand). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's true that some diacritics are helpful in pronunciation, although sometimes they're needless. (For example, the Spanish name Sanchez is pronounced the same as Sánchez, because the next-to-last syllable is automatically stressed unless some other syllable is marked.) But even when they are useful for pronunciation, they are really only helpful to people who speak that language, i.e., not the majority of our readers, no matter what the subject is. If you wanted to provide information about pronunciation, you really would have to do that separately.
I agree that we would not want your examples, which are purely aids to pronunciation for those that already speak that language. We might do something similar if the diacritics indicate that these are two different words. We could possibly consider something like Resume (Résumé) vs Resume (to resume an activity) (except that we'd never use the verb resume as an article title; it would be resuming).
Overall, I think you're right. It's a weak argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have hit on something when you say that diacritics are only useful to people who speak the language... or to put it another way (one linked to WP:AT), they are only recognizable and natural to people who speak the language. And that sets up another issue... not all diacritics are equal. Most English speakers have had at least a few years of French and/or Spanish in school ... That means that the typical English speaker will be familiar with the diacritics in those languages and not at all familiar with diacritics used in other languages (ie they will find French/Spanish diacritics recognizable and natural... while they will not find other language diacritics at all recognizable and natural). That is why no one complains when they see Résumé, but they do complain when they see Đặng Hữu Phúc. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, you're missing or glossing over three important points:
  1. Most diacritics do serve a pronunciation-related function; those that don't almost always server a word-differentiation function. That there can be a tiny number of exceptions doesn't invalid that.
  2. You don't need to know a language's rules to derive an instant helpful fact from the diacritics: "This is probably not pronounced the way I would think it is if not for the diacritics." Any well-written article will then provide a pronunciation aid.
  3. No one has made the point that explaining pronunciation is the purpose of including diacritics in names of WP articles; the principle reason is they're simply the correct names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not missing or glossing over those points... I am saying that none of them matter when it comes to choosing an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. We choose our titles based on balancing five basic principles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. Pronunciation is not one of our basic principles for titles. Nor, in fact, is "Correctness". It comes down to this... some titles will be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent if you include diacritics. Others however, will not be. We know which is which by looking at recent source usage. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
S, you're missing the point. Yes: Most diacritics do serve a pronunciation-related function. No: Most diacritics do not serve a pronunciation-related function for readers of English (i.e., the people reading this particular Wikipedia). Most diacritics serve a pronunciation-related function only for people who actually read whatever that non-English language is.
So Blueboar's question here is something like this: Given that 99% of our readers do not speak Vietnamese, should we title Vietnamese-related articles in a way that provides 99% of our readers no actual help with pronouncing it, and then claim that we picked this title to help them pronounce it? Or should we maybe focus on a somewhat more honest reason, like the fact that many editors happen to like Being Right™ and therefore happen to like using diacritics? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Blueboar: Nothing here is ever that simple. This is not just an AT discussion. Whether a particular rendering of a name is actually correct or is an oversimplifying anglicization is an issue for at WP:NPOV policy, and several WP:NOT sections, as well as WP:AT#English-language titles itself, and MOS of course. AT is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia. But while we're talking about it, note that AT itself doesn't support anglicization of everything, and the first example it gives of something that should not be anglicized is coup d'état, something with a diacritic. And simply mentioning five of its titling principles doesn't constitute an analysis, anyway, nor are those by any means the only five principles at play just in AT alone. In this particular case (Vietnamese names and their diacritics), the most salient part of AT is the passage in WP:AT#English-language titles: "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject", for obvious reasons. For Vietnamese subjects with enough coverage in English-language sources for that coverage to matter, most of the coverage is too old to matter (before the widespread adoption of Unicode). An argument to use old sources for these names here is an argument for using Mao Tse Tung, Peking and Bombay instead of Mao Zedong, Beijing and Mumbai, since they're all comparatively recent spellings and older sources using the older orthography greatly outnumber recent ones using the newer versions. Anyway, your five-principles summary of AT does not agree with AT's nutshell, its intro, or its text as a whole. Not all of the principles you mentioned are even germane here. Precision and concision are unaffected by diacritics. Using the diacritics in the case of Vietnamese is an increase in consistency, not a decrease, and no case has been made for singling out Vietnamese for stripping of its diacritics. Naturalness: Depends entirely on what languages a reader is familiar with; even aside from that, once an editor is aware of the proper spelling of the name with diacritics, it then is the one "that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles". Recognizability: A name with diacritics is itself not less recognizable than one without, unless one needs better glasses and literally cannot make out the letterforms clearly. Names with them are more recognizable to people familiar with the language, and in some cases even people unfamiliar with it (though probably not for Vietnamese).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: All you're doing is presenting a "get rid of all diacritics" argument. Nothing you've said or suggested about Vietnamese is untrue of any other language (except some percentile points, but it's not like your'e getting "99%" from anywhere). I reiterate that this sort of case against "the aid to pronunciation argument" is a red herring. No one cares about or is really making that argument. The actual utility to people who do not understand what particular diacritics means in a specific context is simply the fact that the diacritics are there all, which usually indicates that they need to go look in the article for pronunciation info, because the name is likely not pronounced how they would guess it would be, absent the diacritics. But there are other reasons. Some words/names with and without diacritics are completely different, sometimes not even from related languages. But no one is actually making the argument you say they are that a particular diacritic in, say, Vietnamese, helps English-only readers know how to pronounce that particular name correctly (though a few are likely to find out; I didn't know about diacritics in either Turkish or Polish in any detail until inspired by WP article titles to find out).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
English isn't like other languages in that it pretends to be international and capable of absorbing all words borrowed or stolen from other languages using the 26 letters at its disposal. While that may have been "true" 150 years ago at the height of its reach, we are far from that model upon which that arrogant belief can be based. English is often confusing to foreigners in that words are often spelt in one way and pronounced in another. That is the antithesis to most other latin-based languages that are pronounced as they are written – French, Czech... just to name but two that I am familiar with. Just because native English users can cope with "Slough" being pronounced both "slau" or "sluff", they continue to pretend that they can pronounce the words "cafe" and "debut" correctly without the diacritic, or accept that the "h" is silent in Thailand. Only the English will expect you to know that "Featherstonehough" is pronounced "Fenshaw". Whilst all that still remains fair enough, but people come unstuck when they are faced with "Jiri Nemec" without diacritics. Poor Jiri will be insulted by being called a bastardised "Jerry". Not very nice at all. The world is internationalising, and it's high time to accept the fact that the nature of English has changed as a result. At least, the existence of diacritics sends a signal that it may be pronounced somewhat differently to how it is represented by the "English alphabet". And if you can borrow the "ë" in Chloë, or "ß" in "straße", you ought to be able to accept the "ř" in "Jiří". It's time to wake up and smell the torrefied café ;-). -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
RE: "it's high time to accept the fact that the nature of English has changed as a result." I think it would be more accurate to say that the nature of English is in the process of changing as a result. It's in a transitional period... and transitional periods are always difficult to deal with. The problem with writing policy about things in transition is that they are neither always nor never... they are somewhere in the middle - at sometimes and sometimes not. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

When ALL the sources are non-English

Maybe I'm wrong, but nothing at WP:N and WP:V seems to directly address the case where all of the sources for a given topic are non-English; where there are no English sources. Such a case is relevant to WP:AT because we rely on usage in English RS in particular to determine WP:COMMONNAME. If there are no English RS, what do we do?

I think the argument could be made at WP:N that such topics should be declared as non-notable. That would solve the problem at WP:AT. I mean, why bother covering a topic in an English encyclopedia if none of the background material is available in English? Of course that doesn't mean the topic is not notable, per se, it just means that it's not sufficiently notable, in the English-speaking world, at least not yet, to warrant the attention of English speaking authorities to write about, so it should not be covered by us.

Anyway, if such topics are considered notable, then how do we decide what the title should be when there are no English RS to survey? --В²C ☎ 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't get into the notability question... this is the wrong venue for that. So... let's assume a notable topic with no English language sources (as unlikely as that may be).
Assuming that... The point of COMMONNAME is simply to say that we favor the most recognizable and natural variant over other variants. Since this is the English language version of Wikipeida, it makes sense to favor English language COMMONNAMEs over non-English COMMONNAMES ... because the English ones will be the most recognizable and natural to the majority of our readers. However, in a case where there are no English language sources, then obviously an English language COMMONNAME can't exist.
We would still favor a COMMONNAME over an uncommon name... in whatever language ... as that would still be the most recognizable and natural (even for English speakers). And if there is no COMMONNAME in any language, then we can use one of the less common names (we would need to discuss the options and reach a consensus on which to use) or perhaps create a descriptive title. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
COMMONNAME doesn't say that at all. "Most common" in reliable sources does not equate to "the most recognizable and natural (even for English speakers)"; what English speakers recognize and find natural has jack to do with what non-English sources print.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:V & WP:N most definitely do not discriminate against foreign language sources. If a topic is notable in any language, it is welcome at en. So how to translate foreign terms and names that have not been translated in reliable sources. Speculating here... Maybe refer to a reputable translation service, even if the most reputable translated is google translate. Note, however, that there is recognition (I saw it somewhere) that auto-translations are NOT to be relied upon. They produce pieces of nonsense. There needs to be at least one bilingual editor involve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Some projects have standards for tranlisterations of titles, such as MOS:JAPAN. WP:COMMONNAME should only be resorted to if there's likely to be a legitimate dispute. Personally I think COMMONNAME is referred to far too often—there are editors who delight in trying to bend search statistics to their wills when there are already perfectly acceptable defaults.
    There's also no reason to discourage productive editors from contributing if they happen to be contributing articles on subjects with no English sources. Would we be better off if they simply stopped (or cut back on) contributing? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Facts about fonts

There's a remarkably lousy test proposed above, that amounts to an assertion that reliable sources are never permitted to choose to omit diacritics for all words (or all words in a given language). If they do—if they omit diacritics from the names of Vietnames people and Vietnamese places—then that's taken as proof that they are incapable of using diacritics, rather as an indication that they may have made a conscious editorial policy not to use diacritics for that language. This appears to be partly based on a flawed guess about how fonts work.

Most typefaces are cheap these days, and publishers expect to buy them. A full package of Adobe's Myriad (a very common professional font family) for Arabic is merely US $229. Myriad Hebrew is $340, and you get 20 separate styles and weights for that. A single weight (e.g., regular, for use in running text) is just $29. The full font family is more expensive, but (a) it's a once-in-a-lifetime cost of $35 each for the weights you need, (b) it's cheaper than it was 20 years ago, and (c) that $35 includes a lot of characters. Which leads us to the next truth:

The diacritics in question are easily available by default in professional typefaces. Click here to see Vietnamese diacritics in Myriad. That popular font family covers all diacritics for all of these languages, in addition to what we think of as basic letters for English: Croatian, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, Serbian (Latin), Slovak, Slovenian, Turkish, modern Greek, Afrikaans, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, Gaelic, German, Icelandic, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Sami, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Welsh, archaic Danish, Esperanto, plus Cyrillic characters for Balkar, Belarusian(Cyrillic), Bulgarian, Erzya, Karachay, Kumyk, Macedonian, Moksha, Nanai, Nivkh, Nogai, Russian, Rusyn, Selkup, Serbian(Cyrillic) and Ukrainian. Oh, and Vietnamese. That's a lot.

Furthermore, for "casual" publishing—the sort where you don't spend hours listening to people argue whether Myriad's y is too distracting or that they're driven nuts but the square dot on the i in Lintoype's Frutiger—you usually don't need to do anything at all. I've got Vietnamese diacritics installed, by default, on my Mac, and that's normal. Macs are common in the publishing industry. Even if the publisher doesn't want to pay for a font, these diacritics are usually available to them for free.

Therefore, if the sources don't use Vietnamese diacritics for anything, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they don't use them because they don't want to, not because they can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So, how many different subthreads do you, Born2cycle and Blueboar need to create to fragment and dominate the discussion? Shall we go for a dozen? How about 20? You've introduced five more paragraphs of trivia just to reiterate your assertion that some publishers just don't want to use diacritics today, when everyone's already acknowledged that (the difficulty issue was raised in relation to older publications, but you somehow didn't notice that), and after we've suggested various particular reasons for this, from political bias to news style expediency, and examined why they don't have anything to do with what MOS/AT should say or what WP should do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think about 20 more should do it. :>) As to your more serious point... I completely agree that we should ignore older publications when determining a COMMONNAME (in this case the determination of whether the use of diacritics is COMMON or not). Or at least we should always give more weight to newer sources. We already do this for name changes for example... when someone changes their name, we have to look at sources written after the name change took place, in order to determine whether the new name is COMMON or whether sources have rejected it and retained the use of the old name. The same principle applies to diacritics... we should give significantly more weight to newer sources, written after publishing software made the ability to include diacritics standard. If those sources don't use diacritics when presenting a specific name, we know that they could, and chose not to do so. In those situations, the non-diacritic version that is common among the sources should be considered the COMMONNAME, and Wikipedia should use that COMMONNAME as our title. What this means is that some titles will have diacritics, and others won't. That's OK. Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, improved comment from Blueboar but please remember diacritics in print sources are not determined by software but by proofreader cost/time - software has been available to all publishers for over a decade. It is a MOS/cost decision, with the emphasis on cost. Am I the only one on this talk page who actually works in real book publishing? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Why should the publishers' or editors' Manual of Style decisions be ignored? Really: The staff of The New York Times argues all the time about their style guide. They made an editorial decision not to use (among others) Vietnamese diacritics. There is zero evidence that this would cost them anything—certainly nothing more than a trivial expense. But you are saying that because they consciously decided not to use those diacritics, that they are no longer a reliable source for whether or not diacritics are commonly used in an English-language publication, with some handwaving assertions about "cost" that simply don't bear out for that medium. If they'd decided the opposite—if exactly the same people went through exactly the same process, but their decision agreed with your pro-diacritics POV—then you'd say exactly the opposite about their decision.
You haven't ever worked in journalism, have you? And yet you want your experience with very slow publishing systems to determine what happens with names (e.g., athletes) that are unlikely to appear in real books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, just for the record you don't get to use "handwaving" and "POV" at me. You probably shouldn't speak to other editors like this either.
Have you also worked in publishing management then? Yes, I have worked in "journalism", meaning in short-turnaround publishing. Most recently only 2 years ago, well into the modern font proofreading-cost-time equation. There is of course an ongoing discussion in short-turnaround publishing just as in mid/long term publishing. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't imitate the MOS of sources from short-turnaround publishing. What you call "handwaving" "assertions" can be checked if you conduct a simple Google Book search on "costs" "diacritics" (bearing in mind that "diacritics" is Wikipediaese and "diacritical marks" is the more correct term). If there is a software element to "foreign" fonts in modern publishing it is in use of sophisticated multilingual spellchecker software to reduce proofreader time/costs, not input and display issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I limited my search to books published this century, and have pulled quotations that might be remotely useful (quite a lot was completely irrelevant). First, here the ones that do not invoke expense, which is nearly all of them. The main theme is simplicity for the general reader:

  • "Diacritical marks are omitted from Vietnamese names due to typographical limitations and the restricted understanding"
  • "Common U.S. practice has been to eliminate all diacritical marks in the titles of films and the names of actors..."
  • "Languages with diacritical marks, such as Czech, almost always drop them m text messages."
  • "A word about the use of diacritical marks: We have not attempted to use diacritical marks in articles that did not carry them."
  • "Often these renderings are decorated with a profusion of confusing and varied diacritical marks."
  • "I have generally omitted diacritical marks when converting words from Arabic and other Near Eastern languages to Roman letters — the general reader is confused or put off by them, the specialist generally does not need them"
  • "Second, the standard file formats and conventions for modifying and marking up translations ensured minimal problems with conversion, diacritical marks, etc."
  • "Vietnamese Tofu (dau hu or dau phu; these and all of the following terms are spelled [in Vietnamese, not in this book] with many diacritical marks)"
  • "For the sake of simplicity, I have not included diacritical marks."
  • "I have tried to make the translation as accessible as possible, rendering Tibetan names and terms in phonetics (rather than in the more difficult Wylie transliteration scheme) and avoiding the use of Sanskrit diacritical marks in the main body of the translation."
  • "Problems are incurred with strange fonts, and particularly with alphabets that have accents or diacritical marks"
  • "Second, even though I have had to use diacritical marks for the English spelling of Sanskrit words, I have invoked them in extreme moderation"

Here are the ones that invoke expense. They additionally invoke simplicity as a motivating factor:

  • "Joining many publishers who do not insert diacritical marks for words such as the Sanskrit Sunyata, this book also omits them. Scholars and others who know languages such as Sanskrit, Pali, Arabic or Japanese do not need the diacritical marks to identify words in their original written form. And persons who do not know these languages gian little from having the marks reproduced....the high cost of ensuring accuracy in using diacritical remarks does not justify reproducing them here."
  • "I have chosen to transliterate Arabic and Hebrew terms as simply as possible; that is, without various diacritical marks, as that would have greatly added to the labor of the editor and the cost of the book"

These last two appeared to contain far more non-English words than average. The situation is completely different when you're talking about having only one or two non-English names in an entire news article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's a fairly representative search. Naturally hits accumulate on the non-Latin "Sanskrit, Pali, Arabic or Japanese" end of the scale, which is also where there's either no consensus (Japanese macrons, Sanskrit), or consensus against (Arabic) on en.wp. And that's probably as it should be. It's less common in book prefaces to find discussion of why Polish fonts have been included/omitted, publishers simply do it. If en.wp ever produces a newspaper we should probably adopt a newspaper MOS. It's interesting as a historical exercise to hark back to "Czasy and Szwajcarskie are two Polish fonts that mimic Times and Helvetica." (30 years ago but I remember that). but today the criteria in publishing is time (= money), and if we weren't using free volunteer cloud editing en.wp's universal Unicode for European Latin alphabet articles would be impossible. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus for macronned Japanese on en.wp, unless trumped by COMMONNAME. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, so there is, forgot. Sorry struck 04:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we just close this entire talk fest. The explosion of "fucking" from B2C went to ANI, and it will be several weeks or months before the next B2C incident. We have a couple of additional editors who don't edit bio or geo articles complaining about what bio and geo editors do, which they are perfectly entitled to do but will change diddly squat as the English say. And we have Fyunck being realistic (which is to be welcomed, but honestly the accusation of "censorship" and argument for "reading glasses" need to be taken to WikiProject Tennis where the argument started). We also have the usual communication gap between those with software experience and those with publishing (cost/time) experience. Is there likely to be anything concrete or actionable arising from further bytes? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we could reach a compromise and consensus for a realistic "when to include diacritics in a title, and when not to do so" statement for the policy, it might help avoid discussions like this from arising in the future. I actually think we are inching towards achieving that. I think we all agree that the use of diacritics isn't an always or never issue... so now it's just a question of trying to reach agreement on where and how to draw the line. That requires some additional discussion. Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. There will continue to need to be a venue for occasional "outrageous!" (see above) protest against article reality (article space contributors persistent and universal use of full Unicode for foreign person and place names) if the venue isn't here, where will it be? This is just sucking up time. I do still propose we remove the completely misleadling "general usage" from WP:DIACRITICS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no way this particular fragmented, overly emotive mess is going to result in some kind of consensus, other than that consensus has not changed. Even the "general" wording change, I would either just go do it and see if people want to WP:BRD about it, or re-raise it a littl elater in a "clean" thread unattached to this rambling, circular mess. (Example of circularity: Less than a day after I made a major point of the NYT and Guardian style guides been unhelpful on this subject specifically becuase the represent news style and publisher expediency, here we have Blueboar going on about how the NYT style guide is a smoking gun again diacritics. <rolling my eyes> This is a waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing "general" before "usage" at Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters will achieve nothing, if you read the entire section. The key bit is the one that comes up again and again in many completely different discussions about article titles, namely "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Whenever "common name" is invoked I find I want to add a cross-reference to all the principles at WP:AT; a key issue here is precision, which will often point to using a less "common" name in favour of one that is precise and unambiguous (in this discussion one using diacritical marks). There's also consistency, but it seems to be regarded as of very limited importance.

Was it worth discussing here? Yes. A full RfC on changing policy on diacritics is over-due since the position has changed from the earlier strong opposition to anything but "English". It's useful to rehearse and sharpen the arguments in advance. I lean towards more use of diacritics (and original writing systems) than seems the present norm, but would like to clarify the wording which will be needed to achieve both a reasonable position and a consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a full RfC. I would suggest the following:
  • The editors at WP:Article titles wish to determine whether community consensus has changed regarding the use or non-use of diacritics in article titles. With this goal, please comment on the following:
    • Should the use of diacritics be generally accepted in article titles?
    • If so, are their exceptions when they should not be used?
    • If not, are their exceptions when they should be used?
I think that presents the issue neutrally... These three questions will help us to determine where the community currently stands... and will tell us how to amend the policy if consensus has changed. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(1) User:Peter coxhead, (2) User:Blueboar, please if you're going to continue this discussion can you please first both link to one example article without diacritics in the title so there is an example of what you are referring to. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
sure... as an example of where I think a diacritic should not be used (and isn't) would be: Ho Chi Minh (and the related Ho Chi Minh City). An example of where I think one should be used (and is) would be: François Mitterand. In both cases, the use/non-use appropriately follows the COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay so based on the example, Hồ Chí Minh, I understand this is an issue of separating out Asian Latin alphabet articles from European articles where diacritics are universally used. You realize I expect that the only major Asian Latin alphabet affected is Vietnamese since Indonesian, Tagalog etc. don't have diacritics. (leaving aside Maori macron, Hawaiian okina as individual marks). So what you're proposing is an RFC as to whether the community wants Vietnamese to be treated differently from all other Latin alphabet languages. We've just had such an RFC and there was a massive WP:SNOW result to treat Vietnamese geo articles exactly as any other Latin alphabet language. So why is the result of the bot advertised and well attended RFC we have just had not sufficient?
NB As a very minor point, which I don't agree with, some WP Vietnam editors in the past have argued Hồ Chí Minh is a special case because it became notable in exile in China as a nom de guerre.
Unless you are not saying just Vietnamese, and have a non-Vietnamese example? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't an issue of separating out Asian from European ... Its an issue of how the two names appear in reliable sources. It's a COMMONNAME issue... If the bulk of reliable sources routinely presented the name as "Hồ Chí Minh" (with the diacritic), I argue that we should do so as well... but they don't. And if the bulk of reliable sources routinely presented the other name as "Francois Mitterand" (without the diacritic) I would argue that we should not use it as well.... but they don't. I have nothing against diacritics ... I simply feel that Recognizability and Naturalness (as demonstrated through COMMONNAME examination of sources) is more important. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but based on comparing article title reality with the low-MOS bulk of Google Books, that's appears to be a sincerely held wish on your part rather than the way the real world is. I know from past discussion here that you strongly believe it should be about "the bulk of reliable sources routinely presented". But your view is an ideal of how you believe en.wikipedia should be rather than the reality. The reality is not this way, which is why I'm asking for an example of an article from reality. Anyone working in the relevant European article space (bios, history or geos) knows European Latin-alphabet articles, even such as Maltese Xgħajra and Ħaż-Żebbuġ, are universally at full diacritics. You were asked for an example - you presented a Vietnamese example, I respond with a reminder that there's just been a WP:SNOW result at a well attended Vietnam RFC, almost none of the participants of whom I recognized as WP Vietnam editors, and now you're saying "No it isn't an issue of separating out Asian from European" - then please give an example of a European article, because the example you gave was Asian. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
OK... To give an example of a western, non-Vietnamese name where I think we should NOT include the diacritics... I would say we should drop the diacritic in the title of our article André the Giant. While Michael Krugman's biography of the wrestler/actor does use the diacritic, that source seems to be an outlier. An overwhelming majority of reliable sources that discuss the subject don't use one... Nor does the subject's offical website, for what that's worth. It seems clear that the COMMONNAME presentation of the name is to not include the diacritic. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:COMMONNAME that suggests that it has anything to do with diacritics—the examples given are of mutually exclusive choices, such as "Lady Gaga" vs "Stefani Germanotta", or "Caffeine" vs "1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione". Why the "common name" is preferred in such cases should be obvious. Neither does COMMONNAME apply to styling, which is why we have TIME and MAD at Time (magazine) and Mad (magazine), even though reliable sources tend to use the all-caps versions.
Diacritics are transparent—easily redirected to, and readers just ignore the diacritics they don't understand. Do the diacritics hinder reading the article? That would certainly be the case if we used cyrillic or kanji, but I have yet to hear of a reader who was legitimately stopped in their tracks by a diacritical mark or three—they'll (mis)pronounce "Hồ Chí Minh" and "Ho Chi Minh" they same way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Curly Turkey, this is a good point. There's no evidence that someone will truly be shocked ồ or à. In the context of the name Antônio Flávio theres also an ô and an á, but would we expect the reaction

"it's fucking nuts. Worse. It mocks Wikipedia. Look at this. Antônio Flávio. What the hell? That's the title in the English Wikipedia. The ENGLISH Wikipedia. I kid you not! What a fucking farce. That is not English. That is not recognizable. It is certainly not natural. When I Google that gobbledygook I get a bunch of Portuguese sites. But when I search for "Antônio Flávio", I get English websites. It makes no sense to use non-English terms in an English encyclopedia. I've seen plenty of bullshit on WP before, but this has to take the cake. [Note: name of bio article in this quotation, and language "Portuguese", switched for the purposes of illustration of question below]

I've taken from the example above, since it is above (and also since the editor hasn't seen fit to apologize here or strike it), but in fairness it's not the first time similar has been said. So why doesn't Antônio Flávio elicit the same response as Hồ Ngọc Hà]]? Is it is the ọ underdot? Is it the extra mark on ồ? Or is it in part because Ho Ngoc Ha itself, without diacritics is more foreign than Antonio Flavio without diacritics. It's my view, though I haven't seem it empirically demonstrated, that most people react first to the information they can digest - which is the basic letters abcABC. Awareness of accents, markings is a secondary reaction. - using exactly the same markings in a test name Simồn Bọn Hàlder may for some readers have less shock impact than Ho Ngoc Ha. So we need to be clear with Vietnamese, what exactly is it that is shocking. Is it more the dots on the vowels, or is it the Asian-ness, or is it both? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually... the line: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural" Recognizability and Naturalness are the key... they do suggest that COMMONNAME would apply to names with diacritics. When choosing between "Andre" and "André" or "Ho" and "Hồ" we prefer the variant that is most commonly used... that will be the most Recognizable and Natural to our readers. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm Canadian—if I were hit with "Andre" rather than "André", I'd be left wondering how the name were pronounced and what it's original was (and I know several Andrés who don't speak French). Natural it ain't. Anyways, since it comes down to a matter of styling, I don't see COMMONNAME applying (just as a recent RfC over spacing of initials failed—COMMONNAME doesn't apply to issues of style). Personally, I get sick of hearing COMMONNAME all over the place, and the ways people try to twist "common" to mean what they want it to.
You haven't addressed how any reader would be put out when confronted with "Hồ Chí Minh". Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
actually Ho Chi Minh is one of those examples like Saigon where it can be said to have earned an english language exonym, sans diacritics. The strongest evidence for this is high-MOS sources that use proper vietnamese diacritics will nonetheless decline to do so for Ho Chi Minh. You will not see the same thing for Francois Mitterand, eg a source which uses ç for some names but not for his. This is rare, and rather odd but c'est la vie that small communes in Vietnam will have diacritics but a few of the most famous cities will not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar, thank you for the courtesy of actually answering the question and giving an example, it is appreciated that you are one of the discussants on these pages who is actually willing for discussion to be 2-way. I would say your André the Giant is a good example, precisely because it illustrates that the debate about diacritics is not about bread-and-butter European names like André Sá which 100% all have full diacritics, but even with stage-names with "the Giant" we still use diacritics. So is a RFC really able to deal with exceptions like André the Giant which are so specific. Again, your choice of example demonstrates that there is no need for an RFC for European names because they are 100% accepted and implemented.
As for COMMONNAME, the consensus in the editing community is not to use COMMONNAME to determine diacritics, only COMMONNAME-WITHIN-HIGH-MOS-SOURCES-THAT-USE-DIACRITICS. This is why 100% of footballers are given diacritics even though article footnotes are often drawn from low-MOS sources such as html websites and tabloid newspapers. Even hardbacked sports annuals rarely use diacritics, even for French and Spanish players.
@Obiwankenobi. The Vietnam geo RfC only indicated 3 cities I think as actual French or English derived exonyms none of which are distinguished by diacritics, but by French (Hanoi, Saigon) or English Ho Chi Minh City spelling. As above small text I'm not convinced by the argument that Ho Chi Minh himself is a pseudo-Chinese nom de guerre, and have not seen high-MOS sources removing the ồ (which is a different vowel from short o) among a list of other Vietnamese names. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Putting aside those cases about topics which have no English sources, I don't understand why we can't use COMMONNAME to make title decisions involving diacritics, just like we use it to make most other title decisions about topics that have names.

I would just like to add that I, for one, think that this discussion has proven to be interesting if not (yet) productive. What is definitely non-productive are complaints about the discussion. If you don't think it's a useful discussion, don't participate. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 21:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle, The problem for editors that mainly contribute to article space is that these kind of Talk page discussions suck away valuable article space time. Also any talk which is emotional, argumentative and repetitive can easily end up at ANI. However to move forward if you are interested how en.wp articles treat the subject, could you please do as User:Blueboar has just done and link to one example article without diacritics in the title so there is an example of what you are referring to. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi asked me (much earlier in the thread!) to link to some titles I thought should be without diacritics. I'd just like to make clear that I don't think this is a COMMONNAME issue. I don't care in the slightest whether "François Mitterand" is or is not more "common" than "Francois Mitterand". It's not the issue. For me the issue is different: do the diacritical marks make readability too difficult for ordinary English readers? When a language, whether Maltese or Vietnamese, uses a very large number of diacritical marks, particularly ones not commonly seen in English-language sources, does this make it too difficult for ordinary English readers to read as if without diacritics and to enter into a search box without diacritics to find the redirect? I see that people working on Malta or Vietnam related articles have reached a consensus to use the original writing system, but is that a true community-wide consensus or a local one? Perhaps it's a font issue (or my eyesight!), but the second character in "Hữu" is not obviously derived from a "u" to me, and this makes it more like ð, þ, or ŋ used in writing some languages to extend the Latin alphabet rather than transparently modify it. Styles become an issue when they distract rather than help the reader. I'd like to see what the consensus is across as wide a range of editors as possible, but if this is framed as yet another "common usage trumps all" debate, count me out. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The question ideally should be: Do they make it better or worse for readers interested in reading the article? But this is hard to measure, without surveys, and is hard with surveys. A proxy method is to compare with referenced sources. Most independent secondary source publications are already concerned with the needs of their readership. We need to affirm that "common usage" does not mean what it appears, that it means "what is done in reliable sources" (reliable sources that care about their readers, which means secondary sources, not primary sources), and that we should avoid terms that appear to suggest relying on individuals' understanding of their own vernacular. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@User:Peter coxhead, thank you for addressing the question I asked. Although you didn't name a specific article you're (I understand) questioning the en.wp status quo of any language which includes a complex diacritic in the alphabet. I understand you to propose that e.g. all Maltese article titles should be converted to basic ASCII, given that one couldn't just strip Xgħajra and Ħaż-Żebbuġ and leave the articles which don't use Ħ/ħ intact. Likewise all Icelandic articles would be simplified to basic ASCII, whether they contained ð, þ or not. And all Vietnamese whether these use ư and ơ (horned u and horned o) or not. Apart from these 3 languages I wonder if you would also include Polish, because of Ł in Łazienkowski Bridge, and possibly some of the other East Europe alphabets. That is an extremely deep-reaching suggestion which would change the face of en.wp, but it is more logical than the "if the person plays sport and appears in sport sources we spell their names with sport source MOS" argument from COMMONNAME that has bedeviled this discussion.
@User:SmokeyJoe the question is "hard to measure, without surveys, and is hard with surveys" but the nearest we have come to a recent survey has been mentioned above: WP:VIET GEO NAMES RFC of 2013 had 13 respondents, of whom only 3 (namely myself, ༆, Colonies Chris) were WP Vietnam regulars, the other 9 have no WP Vietnam connection. I would very much doubt any of the other 9 would know the difference between Vietnamese short ư and ơ and Vietnamese long u and o, yet they still supported use of Vietnamese letters in Vietnamese place names. And that response appears typical to me of non-Vietnamese RMs as well. Does that indicate that those 9 non WP Viet felt that full Unicode made the articles "better", and ASCII made the articles "worse". I honestly don't know. But I suspect those 9 are a more random and typical sample of en.wp editors than we select few who watch and whittle on the "Use English" guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, I don't think we are disagreeing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, thanks, I should have made it clear that we are not disagreeing. And in fact I find everyone on this page's comments helpful with the sole exception of B2C, whom others have already counseled to think seriously about his behavior and the advice given at his recently expired topic ban.
User:Obiwankenobi, for you I went and checked in several standard reference works, several of which can only be viewed by Amazon LOOK INSIDE not Google Books, such as Amazon.com LOOK INSIDE Tucker Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, page 4 article 'Agricultural Reform Tribunals' "The December 1953 Land Reform Law called for confiscation of the land and property of most of the landlord class, which Hồ Chí Minh described as "a class struggle in the countryside"...". You are correct about Ho Chi Minh City, but this and other sources confirm what I said above, that Hồ Chí Minh the name is treated with consistency with any other Vietnamese name or nom de guerre in professionally proofread sources. I personally don't believe it is greatly more challenging or disconcerting to someone reading Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War than Janáček Music Festival is to classical music fans. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In response to In ictu oculi, I'm not proposing anything. My personal view, up to now, is, as I've said before, that there is a spectrum here, with increasing numbers and complexity of diacritical marks making it increasingly difficult for non-expert readers. Whether to draw a line and if so where are the questions to be settled. All I insist is that (as has been the case in other recent decisions) (a) usage in reliable sources of the standard of a general encyclopedia rather than those of specialist, narrower works (as would be an encyclopedia of the Vietnam War) should be taken seriously as evidence – not decisive, "knock-down" evidence, but still evidence (b) style decisions should not be left to local consensus such as at WP:VIET GEO NAMES RFC – this just leads to endless arguments – so a MOS-level RfC is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for answer - though there haven't been any arguments since WP:VIET GEO NAMES RFC, in fact there has finally been a deafening peace on the subject.
I don't understand what is meant by a "MOS-level RfC" and how that would be differently advertised from the linked RFC that just took place? The mechanism for advertising and probable attendance would be the same wouldn't it? Further let's say there are 50 Latin-diacritic-affected alphabets, from Albania MOS to Vietnamese MOS, that's 50 MOS decisions for 50 projects, plus editors with one foot in those projects from another 100-150 or so projects such as WP Music, WP Ships, WP Football, WP Military history, etc; editors who double hat and triple hat in the article space creating and contributing to bios, geos and other diacritic-title articles. This isn't "local consensus", this is 1,000s of editors who make the affected articles. To reverse the status quo, and to decide which languages fall on the basic ASCII side of the line and which languages fall on the Unicode side of the line won't it need 50x RfCs, for each specific language? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: one way to hold a "MOS-level RfC" is to propose to change those parts of the MOS which appear (not just to me, it seems) not consistent with current practice. This RfC will, of course, need advertising widely, including to relevant WikiProjects. If there are so many editors in favour of current practice, then such a proposal should easily succeed. So long as the MOS itself does not clearly explain the principles to be followed in respect of diacritics (and it doesn't), then there are just "local consensuses". I write plant articles, mainly, including biographies of botanists. I should find clear guidance on the use of diacritical marks in personal and place names in the MOS, not spread around multiple WikiProjects. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, sensible points well made. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
IIO, I see your point about Ho Chi Minh - and I was perhaps thinking of the city not the man. However we should remain open to the possibility that som Vietnamese people will have gained what amounts to an English-language exonym without diacritics - in some cases because of immigration but in other cases because their names are so widely known- but again for me the best evidence of this is, like Saigon, high MOS sources that decline diacritics for such names. I assume they are rather rare.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That may be a reasonable way to look at it. And one that high-quality, thoughtful sources do in fact take. As an example, see the following:

* “recognizing that nonspecialists may find the diacritics difficult to manage, I have omitted them from terms that are familiar to an English-speaking audience. Widely known toponyms (for example, Vietnam, Hanoi, Haiphong, Hue, Saigon, and so forth) appear without diacritical marks, as do proper names such as Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Vo Nguyen Giap.”

Each publication has to make its own determination of what best serves its audience. My experience is that the question is posed more often than you might imagine. Dohn joe (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, Vietnam, Hanoi, Haiphong, Saigon cannot appear with Vietnamese diacritical marks because they are not Vietnamese words, they are French contractions removing the Vietnamese space between two syllables. Huế has always been at Vietnamese spelling to distinguish from hue. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the point holds for the proper names. User:Obiwankenobi: this is the sort of source you had in mind, yes? Dohn joe (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
yes, a source that has no fear of using Vietnamese diacritics, but declines to for certain names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Except that (a) Wikipedia policy forbids this kind of random picking and choosing on this very policy page. (2) the source states that the source Postcolonial Vietnam: New Histories of the National Past 2002 does have a fear of diacritics, Patricia M. Pelley states she is worried about the response of readers who may find the presence of marks that are meaningless to them "difficult to manage". But since they are not being asked to "manage" the actual pronunciation this is a form of phobia, fear. From one perspective only this unusual author decision which was apparently allowed by Duke University Press (and would never be allowed by OUP) is allowable: When Pelley writes "Peasant movements that lacked decisive leaders could never fulfill their aims. Just as Nguyễn Huệ had commanded the army of peasants who defeated the Chinese and the Thai, so General Vo Nguyen Giap was leading the peasants who.." that doesn't enormously inconvenience the really expert reader because Giap's name is so well known the expert reader can read onto it the missing information to pronounce, just as we do when reading French "Francois" with c in tabloid newspapers. It only really inconveniences the reader with a little knowledge of Vietnamese, but that reader is being de-prioritized for the reader who knows none at all and might find exposure to too many "difficult to manage". But Nguyễn Huệ, even the expert reader cannot be sure the missing vowel is ệ (and therefore among the various possibly "Hue" given names, this emperor's name means 'Mercy' 惠). All in all though I think this editing decision is absolutely laughable. If WP:CRITERIA was amended to allow inconsistent MOS titling, and allocating "English names" to foreigners who are famous enough to have achieved accent-stripping I think that would be not the most noble day in en.wikipedia's history. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A new diacritics question

Yes, I am starting yet another thread... I do so because I think the discussion would be more constructive if we explored the issue by asking a somewhat different set of questions: Given that there seems to be consensus to allow diacritics in article titles... are there exceptions or limitations to that? Are their situations when we shouldn't use diacritics? If so, what are they? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

One example might be "Montreal" vs "Montréal". Not only is the non-diacrtitic version standard English, but the standard English pronunciation is quite different from the French—even for a francophone speaking English. One could argue that, despite the surface similarities, they are actually different names in the two languages, à la "Venice" and "Venezzio". I think that's a more solid argument than COMMONNAME, anyways. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
And yet, even that is changing slowly. The English side of nhl.com uses "Montréal" now. Resolute 04:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
They do, too, don't they? The Montreal Gazette continues to drop the accent aigu, though. Perhaps the fact that "Canadiens" is in the French spelling means the NHL considers it a francophone team? I'm in favour of including the diacritics, anyways (except in Japanese—I hate macrons in Japanese). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The team is indeed called the "Canadiens" in reference of the fact that it was founded (ironically by a couple of Anglophones) to be the team of Montreal's Francophones in the NHA. The old Montreal Wanderers represented Anglophones. That is an aside, however, as such a move for Montreal is not likely to succeed. Resolute 17:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
agreed. When things have earned an English exonym, then diacritics can be dropped. Similarly for people who immigrate and change their names by dropping diacritics to blend in better, in those cases one can often drop the diacritics - you have to look at usage in high-MOS reliable sources. Ngô Bảo Châu is one example I remember like this - even though he lives in America he still uses diacritics in high-MOS sources. The best way to determine this is when sources that are capable of using diacritics decline to do so, re the example given above for Ho Chi Minh city which books that use diacritics sometimes decline to use them for Ho Chi Minh city, and other well known names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Firstly (1) congratulate @Blueboar on presenting a productive alternative question. Secondly @CurlyTurkey, agree with Montreal" vs "Montréal" as an example of an exonym by diacritic removal. Thirdly @Obi-Wan, that is partly because the Vietnamese mathematician has deliberately not taken US citizenship. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
IIO, I'm not sure how much American citizenship has to do with it. I don't think there evidence he has gone out of his way to not integrate into American society, it's simply that he has chosen to retain the diacritics and high MOS sources do the same - if he took citizenship tomorrow I don't think that would change. It will be interesting to see what his kids do. Although I do note, from personal experience, that legal names at least in my state in the US can't have diacritics, the birth certificate software won't allow it, nor will social security administration nor passports, so we have old IT systems here in the US that serve to strip diacritics of Americans over time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Obi-Wan, true, in that particular case you're probably right I remember from the RFC both his online CV and also other examples of a surprisingly high interest in high-Unicode fonts in maths sources. However as a general rule of thumb a change of nationality, except where forced by exile, often presents e.g. an Anglicisation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (Geo1) Where an English exonym is established by deliberate removal of accents and other diacritical markings in enabled sources, example: deliberate ommission of é for Montréal in English Canadian texts which can be shown to employ é for other place and person names.
  • (Bio1) Where a change of nationality has effected a change of name; Martina Navratilova
  • (Bio2) Where an exceptional English translated personal name has been established for an internationally notable figure; examples Franz Josef Strauss (replacement of German -ß by -ss), Novak Djokovic (use of old Serbian transliteration "Dj" for Serbian cyrilic Ђ, instead of modern use of Croatian Đ).
  • (Bio3) Where a WP:STAGENAME has been established by deliberate removal of an accent, removal of é by US based French DJ Cedric Gervais
These are the 3 cases I'm aware of for modern era bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with all of these exceptions. Any others? Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One that comes to mind is Saint Etienne, whether we are talking about the town or the football club. I was going to comment on this earlier, but only now is it truly relevant. Our practices seem to be more French than the Frenchies. Most commonly, there is still the convention to drop the accent above the capitalised E. In the French language, there is no other way of pronouncing these words, as the E+consonant at the start of a word would be exactly the same with or without the acute E – I cannot think of any examples where this is not the case. The French practice of not using the É is learned in school even to this day. It also happens probably for historical typographical reasons. Even highbrow French sources line Le Figaro and Le Monde appear to systematically drop it. I feel that these can be safely dropped. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do these exceptions have anything in common?

OK... assuming we all accept these exceptions... let's see if they have anything in common (commonalities that might lead us to formulating some "rules of thumb"). Here are my observations...

  • The non-use of diacritics is subject specific. In other words, the fact that diacritics are not used in name X is completely unrelated to whether diacritics are used in name Y (and vice versa). In wikipedia terms, this would mean that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are moot.
  • The non-use of diacritics seems to be demonstrated by an examination of reliable sources that generally do use diacritics... but omit them for specific names. This examination may be similar to a COMMONNAME examination... but it has a more limited scope.

Does anyone disagree with my observations? Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a useful question. I would say re (1) that yes, exceptions are by definition subject specific, that is in the nature of exceptions. However defaults are not subject specific. Even if there was a French Francois (sic) who had never appeared in other than a basic ASCII source then WP:CRITERIA No.5 and WP:FRMOS would still prevent use creating a basic-ASCII MOS island around this French Francois (sic). (2) for Latin alphabet languages yes we apply WP:Identifying reliable sources to do what the guideline says and identify reliable sources. In the same way as a book on pre- independence Kosovo or Ukraine is not a reliable source for place names in post- independence Kosovo or Ukraine. The commonality there in (1) is WP:CRITERIA, and in (2) WP:IRS. But I would say that with only 3 "types" spelling the 3 types out is going to be needed anyway. Unless you or anyone else can come up with one. I can't, at first sight, beyond WP:CRITERIA and WP:IRS. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated RM discussions

I think it is more than obvious that there is disruption due to too many repeated RM discussions.

Examples are, the current state of the article talk pages:

With regard to the second, note the supported comment on a request for arb review: "Clearly, due to these rename discussions, which are dominated by editors not well represented in building and maintaining the respective articles, the article talk page is no longer a place for discussing improvements to the articles". Is it not obvious that repeated rename discussions are a narrow obsession of a small number of Wikipedians to the embarrassment of the community?

Article talk pages should not be abused as battlegrounds partisan titling policy games.

I propose two things, for the sake of reserving article talk pages for editors discussing article content:

(1) A default hard limit on any RM discussion within six months of the close of a preceding contested RM discussion, subject to explicit statement on time until the next RM discussion by the closer of the preceding RM, if there have been more than three previous RM discussions affecting the same article.

(2) That any ongoing non-content-focused meta-RM discussions, such as those touching Titling Policy generally, or follow-up meta discussions of RM discussions, or procedural questions, should be moved to:

If agreed, this should be written into the section Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes (aka WP:TITLECHANGES). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:NCP seems like the appropriate venue for broader dicussion, wouldn't start making new pages.
See, for instance, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference relating to the Hillary (Rodham) Clinton issue. Quoting from another editor's contributions to that discussion "There IS a problem that the proposed change solves. It came up most recently in the extended debate over whether to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton." ..."
The NCP guideline page currently contains the following:
Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is usually not advised, although in exceptional cases it might avoid other conundrums, e.g. ‎Sarah Jane Brown [10].[under discussion]
The "under discussion" tag actually links to the Sarah Jane Brown talk page. So I wouldn't just move the discussion out of sight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree about WT:NCP, amended above. The underdiscussion tag, if it needs to be there, can be made to link to anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I just started the following: WT:NCP#Case study: what effect would the proposed guideline addition have regarding Hillary (Rodham) Clinton?, which also addresses part of the moratorium argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, despite being passingly interested, I couldn't penetrate the discussion there on "moritoria", and the discussion seems have have dies there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose no need to legislate here, each case is different and should be dealt with by local consensus. It's rather ironic that SJB is chosen as an example, by my count it was 5 years of move requests to move it to a terrible title that confuses the reader and that zero reliable sources use, but now that one side has won there is an attempt to stifle further productive discussion and cynical accusations of 'too many move requests!' (It's only 'too many' if you've already got the result you like - if you don't then please to back to the well again and again!) the final move to SJB came a short few months after a previous no-consensus result, but none of the SJB crowd complained then about 'too many move requests!'. The partisan Narrative here is stunning. Also very bad idea to put titling discussions elsewhere, better to keep them centralized - in extreme cases they could be moved to a subpage of main talk.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obiwankenobi, I mean for the meta discussions, not the RM proper discussions, to be not on the talk page. I see how it was misread, and added "meta" above. Post-analysis of debate-styles, and discussions of moritoria, do not belong dominating article talk. The subsequent RM discussion, yes, it goes on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, no need to legislate. If a given conversation becomes off topic, then just move it. But editors at page X discussing a moratorium on moves of page X, should remain at the talk of page X. Editors discussing more generally how article titling policy might apply to cases X, Y, Z, should be had at WP:AT or elsewhere. But I see no value in legislating around this, editors generally have a good sense of where discussions can be fruitfully had.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree, no need to "legislate". Some soft guidance on what sort of discussions belong at article_talk, or at naming conventions talk pages. Disagree that all editors know where a discussion better belongs. Do you disagree that some of the threads at the two examples would be better elsewhere? Do you disagree that the current SJB talk page might be astonishing to a new editor? NB. I think you have some fair points about SJB, and it is not currently my preference, but I don't think it helps to have lengthy highly tangential discussions by RM regulars dominating an article subpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to say - being on mainpage attracts more editors, which is a good thing. During the Chelsea Manning debate, we moved everything to a subpage, and several people complained that they were left out or didn't know what was going on, but overall I think it worked well. I think it's really case-by-case. I think at this point SJB discussion could be fruitfully moved to a subpage, for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:NCP#Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation? just opened for the meta discussion regarding Sarah Jane Brown --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As the above is not progressing, I'll try again...

Time between RMs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should there be a minimum time between RM discussions? Specifically, a minimum time after a RM proposal failed to gain consensus before trying much the same thing again? I think there should be, because it is easily trolled and exhausting of participants, distracting to editors who would rather improve content, and because repetition causes people to instinctively dig their heels in. An exception would be new or different information to previous RMs. Otherwise, I think six months is reasonable, and has sort of been followed historically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Six months seems to be pretty traditional, one downside of naming an exact number is it invites those dissatisfied with the previous outcome to try every X units of time. The other problem I see making it explicit is that if and when new information comes up that might change the result, people will toss out "But it hasn't been X units of time yet". There is also the difference between a non-conensus result and definitive earlier result. That all said, I actually agree six months is good time limit for the first retry, but might want to see if up to nine months or a year if that fails. I'd also add larger scope consensus changes as something that would allow a relist; such as an RfC that changed a guideline or policy, though in those cases the impacted pages in theory could be moved without an RM. And I would allow wrong venues to relist, for example an RM that involved a disambiguation page that neglected to notify all the related pages; and allow of course the move review process to send something back for relisting. PaleAqua (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    One other exception I'd allow is if an significant number of !voters change their view after an RM closes. PaleAqua (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Any "good reason" should be sufficient. However, how do you test whether !voters change their mind unless you have been continuing to discuss it? If you continually discuss it, then you bias results to favour those who are prepared to repeatedly "discuss" the same thing, and this is an off-putting behaviour. The counter-question is: "Is six months really that long?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, any "good reason", not just new or changed information. Badgering/beating dead horse shouldn't be allowed, but it is possible for people to change opinions on their own. I know I have at times. Also a lot of times consensus builds over lots of separate but similar localized things into something generalized. PaleAqua (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - closing admins often give guidance, 3, 6 or 12 months. These have been raised about 10 days back at WP:AN with the suggestion that a log/list of such closes should be made. To be honest I think it's working as is and doesn't need overregulating. Some RMs are poorly attended, or not seen, or something else happens elsewhere. Those RMs shouldn't be held to an iron 6 month rule. If it's the annual Burma/Myanmar, Hillary[Rodham]Clinton or Sarah[wife]Brown fest, well... those cases have plenty of article watchers saying enough is enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Setting a time limit does not really address the underlying issue - which is that it is disruptive to rehash the same arguments over and over again. Rather than pegging the filing of a second RM on some arbitrary passage of time, I think the deciding factor should be whether the proposer can bring something new to the discussion (something not discussed or ignored in the previous RM). Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. Perhaps a requirement that a repeat RM within six months of the last close must directly address that discussion, and state what is new about this new proposal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Why allow a rehash after six months? It's still disruptive to repeat the same arguments over and over... no matter how much time has passed.
Side Question... would it make sense to move this discussion to WT:RM? It is kind of peripheral to what this policy page is about. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The point here was to add something to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah... I understand. Then I definitely oppose... I don't think Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes is the right venue to discuss the issue. How much time should pass between RMs is a procedural question that is better stated at WP:RM. This policy is more focused on the "big picture" ... as long as we point to WP:RM (which we do), we can leave it to WP:RM to set its own procedures. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC) .
    • To help avoid repetition, a couple of times I've created frequently asked questions lists/summaries covering the arguments for the various positions being taken, so any new discussion can start with, "See the FAQ—do you have anything to add?" I think this helps a lot with perennial discussions. isaacl (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should certainly discourage people from flogging a dead horse, but I don't think a general time restriction is the way to do it, given the wide range of potential circumstances. The rule would also be rather vague and difficult to apply, particularly the exception for "new or different information to previous RMs". You could virtually always argue that there was new information, such as how the person/thing/whatever has been referred to in sources published since the previous RM. Neljack (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm with In ictu oculi - namely, I think such moratoria are sometimes appropriate, and in such cases they are usually imposed by the closing administrator, in response to comments about a moratorium in the discussion they are closing. In other words, in such cases a moratorium is part of the consensus evaluated by the closer. It usually includes the caveat that the discussion CAN be reopened if new information becomes available or if someone comes up with a new argument. This is currently within closer/consensus discretion and should remain there. We don't need a rule saying that it SHOULD be done, or specifying the term length. Basically I strongly support maintaining the option of such a cooling-off period, but I oppose making it into a rule. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I agree with the proposition and I agree with those who say this better discussed at WT:RM. So I have closed this conversation and copied it to WT:RM. If you are involved and disagree with my action and want to continue the debate here then please revert my use of the template {{discussion top}}. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can RM meta discussions be inappropriate to article talks pages

RM discussions go on article talks pages, virtually always. That's fine. However, following an unsatisfying discussion, participants sometimes turn to meta discussions, post analysis of the RM, wider implications to policy, policy questions, and time to the next RM. These can be undesirable distractions to the article talk page, especially if the dominate the talk page, to the point of being disconcerting to new comers visiting the article, and then the article talk page. I think some simple guidance on these discussions should be welcome. When should they be hatted? Or moved to user_talk? Or moved to a Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions page, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) or Category:Wikipedia naming conventions? Or preferably initiated at these other places?

I think that: "If the discussion is not discussing the article, then the discussion is better hosted elsewhere. Consider taking the discussion to ..."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Instruction creep. I think meta analysis of RMs will naturally take place at the same location as the RM itself... and it's going to happen there no matter what guidance we give. On general principle, we shouldn't write rules unless it is likely that people will follow them. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Meta discussions do, though only sometimes, take place immediately after an RM, to the detriment of the talk page. I think people do prefer to hold the meta discussions elsewhere, but they (like me, above, obviously) are often not sure of where. I guess there is no need at all to write a rule on this one. Sufficient "rules" are already written at Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. I guess all I'm left asking is whether, when a post-RM meta discussion is decidedly not "focused on how to improve the article", or even its title, the discussion might be better continued on a talk page of one of these: Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. ? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure... there is nothing wrong with asking (or even strongly suggesting) that a post-RM meta discussion would be more productive if held elsewhere... just don't insist on it... don't summarily "close" a discussion simply because there might be a better venue for it ("closing" ongoing discussions between other editors is often more disruptive than letting the discussion play itself out).
As for where to suggest that a meta discussion be continued ... the appropriate venue will depend on what specific issues are being discussed. Each meta discussion will be a bit different.
And... if a particular post-RM meta discussion relates to multiple policies or guidelines, it might actually be better to use the article talk page as a place to hold a centralized discussion. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that this would be instruction creep. Neljack (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Combining WP:AT and WP:BLP

Principle 12.1 of the Manning ArbCom case reads:

The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Taking the challenge, I put a proposal up for community discussion at WT:NCP#Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version (that's also where I would group the discussion):

When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:
  1. There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
  2. The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
  3. The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
  4. The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

I have no preference as to which policy page could be affected. WP:V is also a distinct possibility, as the current approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally looks reasonable, but handling may need to vary depending upon the nature or kind of event prompting the name change. Part of why NCROY was developed is because royalty is one of those classes of people wherein name changes occur occasionally, those changes may follow legal, cultural or traditional rules peculiar to the monarchy in question, and the new names are generally immediately acknowledged and used, including on Wikipedia. Usually there is no direct or personal communication by that individual about the name change, let alone any "proof" that the person "chose" or "prefers" the new name, since personal choice may be irrelevant in some cultures (e.g. praise name): the new name may be announced, rather, by the head of state, government or some other more or less official entity and is deemed in effect from the date of that communication, e.g. Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Gabriele Thyssen, Daniel Westling, Ntfombi of Swaziland, Lilian Baels, Wallis Simpson, ex-Pope Benedict XVI, Kate Middleton, Princess Noor bint Asem, etc. FactStraight (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
royalty are given a special exception, for whatever reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I know we have had many discussions about name changes ... and I am a bit surprised that we never actually added anything about it to the policy. If policies are descriptive of actual practice (and they should be) then there is already a fairly settled consensus about how to deal with name changes... and I think that consensus can be stated simply as:
  • Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a name change. When this occurs, Wikipedia usually changes the title of its article to match. Exceptions to this occur when it is clear that a significant majority of reliable sources (written after the name change took place) have rejected the new name and continue to refer to the subject under the old name. Regardless of which name is used as an article title, the other should be made into a redirect, and appropriately mentioned in the article text.
Do we really need to say anything else? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
we already do say that - more or less - which is effectively 'when an entity changes its name, apply standard titling policies, but focus on sources after the name change'.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Plural titles

Comments are invited at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(plurals)#When_singular_and_plural_diverge. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:USEAZ

  • Oppose addition of shortcut WP:USEAZ. [11]. Unintuitive, redundant, no reason for its addition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What does it stand for? Shortcuts should be clear that's why we have them no?-- Moxy (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it telling us to use "az" instead of "and"? I don't understand either. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is referring to the first sentence in the second paragraph: It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order. It might be better for any shortcut related to alphabetizing lists to point to a more general guideline on ordering any list alphabetically, when there is no compelling reason to do otherwise, if it exists. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I am unconvinced that such a guideline exists. Red Slash 23:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Organization provides guidance on the ordering of lists. It currently provides implicit guidance to use alphabetical or numerical order by default. The proposed shortcut seems overly broad in scope with respect to the corresponding section in this article. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a much better target. Thank you! Red Slash 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice

-- PBS (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of common names of species yet again

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The distinction between names of breeds of domestic animals (whether to capitalize them is something about which there is no WP consensus yet) with the common names of species (not capitalized per MOS:LIFE), has popped up again at this proposal to re-capitalize the common name of en equine species: Talk:Przewalski's horse/Archive 1#Requested move. So far, the discussion has only been joined by those who seem to believe it is a domestic breed, despite the article being clear that it is not, and who want to capitalize "Horse" on that basis. Broader input would be useful, especially in light of the lower-casing resolution reached after an enormous debate and a very well-reasoned close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

% in article titles

Hi. Is there any way a percent sign (%) can be used in an article title? I was about to create an article, which has the sign in its proper name. --Soman (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See a page I just created for testing with % in the title: Search %. What is the problem you faced? What is the name of the article you tried to creeate? Yiba (talk | contribs) 11:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES

Reading this section of the policy, it seems like the first sentence is actually talking about unilateral/WP:BOLD pagemoves. If it were talking about all page moves, even requested moves, then why on earth would it recommend filing a requested move in the next paragraph?

In addition, the linked arbitration case (in the footnotes) is explicitly talking about how it's necessary to find consensus through discussion before making big changes. That paragraph was not put in there to avoid any controversial move; it was to stop "bold" controversial moves. Its meaning is not "don't request a controversial move", it means "discuss controversial moves".

In fact, even two years ago, this section read: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged." (Emphasis mine, of course.) Somehow, the point of the section got adjusted, and now people get the impression that changing titles, even after a discussion intended to help our articles follow our naming criteria, is strongly discouraged (when in practice of course it isn't - have you seen WP:RM?). When our policies are unclear or don't communicate the facts on the ground, we rewrite them; I would suggest that this section of WP:AT needs to be rewritten. Red Slash 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen WP:RM... the community routinely rejects changing one controversial title for another controversial title at RM. That tells me that the community really does discourage changing one controversial title for another controversial title. The goal is to try to find a title that isn't controversial. Granted, that isn't always possible, but that is the goal never the less. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The new change, not by me, is much better. Red Slash 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography

In an effort to split an article, I am faced with the problem of which of the two articles after the split should be given the old well-known article title, where both of the new subjects could claim to have COMMONNAME and PRIMARY TOPIC arguments for the title depending on the demography group the reader and/or the editor belong, and would like to invite comments from wider editor-base on how to handle this article naming issue. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the article? Red Slash 07:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The long entry needed to be split into two in accordance to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, and your response was way too fast for me. Could you please delete this section? Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

]

"Winston Churchill not Churchill"

I recall that someone (Blueboar was it??) suggested last year balancing our "absolute shortest is always best" WP:COMMONNAME examples with some examples going the other way. What happened to that? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See below #Is an exclamation mark sufficient for disambiguation -- PBS (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not happy with this "see below". I do not consider it is appropriate for an editor to respond to one editor's question by reformatting, and then to add "see below". This is not in the spirit of not altering other editors' Talk page edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Per your request on my talk page, I reverted my refactoring of two sections into one. As to the "See blow", I added that after I had removed the refactoring. As it is not a refactoring or another editor's edit, my comment see below has not altered any editors edit. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, to this policy, why not add you thoughts to the section new section "#Is an exclamation mark sufficient for disambiguation"? or better still initiate an RfC? -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in allowing me to ask the question I actually asked, please ping me. As I said, I'm going out. Cheers all. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Winston Churchill vs Churchill is treated in WP:CONCISE as an exception, see last paragraph of that section:

Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah), Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Francis. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Long and convoluted disambiguation

I ran into the article Sebastián Fernández (footballer born 1989), and didn't really find any guidance on making a more natural disambiguation. The problem is that Sebastián Fernández - the main topic - is also a footballer from Uruguay - exactly the qualities that would normally disambiguate. Is this the best policy should do, should we have some more policy to handle this kind of situation, or should we just do this ad hoc? VanIsaacWScont 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Has to be done ad hoc, but WP Football has well developed guidelines since so many footballers need disambiguating from other footballers - suggest drop by the project page. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. VanIsaacWScont 04:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Move to Sebastián Fernández (footballer, born 1985) and Sebastián Fernández (footballer, born 1989) per current naming conventions and standard practice. Year of birth is always the preferred disambiguator. GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_46&oldid=1091109668"